You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2001/01/19 23:34:42 UTC
AP_CORE_DECLARE()
Thought,
core is only for Apache (right?????) I'm going to modify the
AP_CORE_DECLARE sematic to always use the C calling convention
(by equating AP_CORE_DECLARE with AP_DECLARE_NONSTD).
AP_CORE_DECLARE, while it exports symbols, is really there to
remind folks it isn't 'their' symbol to use. If they hack with
those connection points, fine, but I can't imagine anyone doing
so outside of a c-friendly language.
RE: AP_CORE_DECLARE()
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:45 PM
>
> I think a better question is, "why don't you remind us why the
> WHOLE system shouldn't just use NONSTD all the time."
because C has never enjoyed link-level compatibility with all languages
because the pascal calling convention dominates
because we want users to be writing to apache from -any- language, no?
Re: AP_CORE_DECLARE()
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:39:00PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:35 PM
> >
> > Thought,
> >
> > core is only for Apache (right?????) I'm going to modify the
> > AP_CORE_DECLARE sematic to always use the C calling convention
> > (by equating AP_CORE_DECLARE with AP_DECLARE_NONSTD).
> >
> > AP_CORE_DECLARE, while it exports symbols, is really there to
> > remind folks it isn't 'their' symbol to use. If they hack with
> > those connection points, fine, but I can't imagine anyone doing
> > so outside of a c-friendly language.
>
> Footnote, it obliviates AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD() since every function
> declared as AP_CORE_DECLARE() accepts the 'nonstandard' semantics
> such as variable args. The two would fold into the shorter name.
>
> Does this appeal?
Sounds fine. I think a better question is, "why don't you remind us why the
WHOLE system shouldn't just use NONSTD all the time."
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: AP_CORE_DECLARE()
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:35 PM
>
> Thought,
>
> core is only for Apache (right?????) I'm going to modify the
> AP_CORE_DECLARE sematic to always use the C calling convention
> (by equating AP_CORE_DECLARE with AP_DECLARE_NONSTD).
>
> AP_CORE_DECLARE, while it exports symbols, is really there to
> remind folks it isn't 'their' symbol to use. If they hack with
> those connection points, fine, but I can't imagine anyone doing
> so outside of a c-friendly language.
Footnote, it obliviates AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD() since every function
declared as AP_CORE_DECLARE() accepts the 'nonstandard' semantics
such as variable args. The two would fold into the shorter name.
Does this appeal?