You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com> on 1999/12/18 08:33:36 UTC
APR vs. Apache's "ap_inline"
I'm adding autoconf detection of inline support in the compiler. When
I do that, a conflict appears between Apache's ap_inline and APR's.
Now, naturally neither APR nor Apache can hide that symbol, so what's
the proper course of action?
1. Rename APR's inline macro to "apr_inline"
2. Just let Apache use APR's macro
3. Ditch ap_inline completely in Apache and just use "inline". It's
less work in the configuration system, and no one should be using
"inline" in their code anyway except as a keyword.
I'm happiest with 1 and 3; 2 introduces configuration linkages between
Apache and APR.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
Re: APR vs. Apache's "ap_inline"
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 02:33:36AM -0500, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > 1. Rename APR's inline macro to "apr_inline"
> > 2. Just let Apache use APR's macro
> > 3. Ditch ap_inline completely in Apache and just use "inline". It's
> > less work in the configuration system, and no one should be using
> > "inline" in their code anyway except as a keyword.
>
> Hmmm, another one.
>
> 4. Just ditch ap_inline in APR; it's not actually used anywhere in
> that library.
No good. It isn't used yet. I do have it in plan that we will need
ap_inline, but that falls under performance tweaking, and we haven't hit
that stage yet.
Ryan
>
> --
> Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd
RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers
doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to
see beginners doing complicated patterns.
Re: APR vs. Apache's "ap_inline"
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 02:33:36AM -0500, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> 1. Rename APR's inline macro to "apr_inline"
> 2. Just let Apache use APR's macro
> 3. Ditch ap_inline completely in Apache and just use "inline". It's
> less work in the configuration system, and no one should be using
> "inline" in their code anyway except as a keyword.
Hmmm, another one.
4. Just ditch ap_inline in APR; it's not actually used anywhere in
that library.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
Re: APR vs. Apache's "ap_inline"
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> I'm adding autoconf detection of inline support in the compiler. When
> I do that, a conflict appears between Apache's ap_inline and APR's.
> Now, naturally neither APR nor Apache can hide that symbol, so what's
> the proper course of action?
>
> 1. Rename APR's inline macro to "apr_inline"
> 2. Just let Apache use APR's macro
> 3. Ditch ap_inline completely in Apache and just use "inline". It's
> less work in the configuration system, and no one should be using
> "inline" in their code anyway except as a keyword.
>
> I'm happiest with 1 and 3; 2 introduces configuration linkages between
> Apache and APR.
On one hand, Apache requires APR, so there isn't a reason to avoid
coupling on the ap_inline macro. On the other hand, it is a compilation
issue rather than a platform issue.
IMO, use APR's macro (#2). It is there, it is defined, and it should be
correct. The "purist" scheme isn't worth the practicality.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/