You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by NormW <no...@gknw.net> on 2017/01/07 00:31:32 UTC
httpd-2.2.x and C89... ;-(
G/M
Did a test build of the 2.2.x tree and all builds nicely with exception
of the following; if release is 'in progress' I leave to others to
decide what to do about it.
> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff
> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
> ===================================================================
> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591)
> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@
> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to give
> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status code.
> */
> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> saved_status = r->status;
> r->status = access_status;
> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> /*
> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was intentional.
Norm
Re: httpd-2.2.x and C89... ;-(
Posted by NormW <no...@gknw.net>.
G/A and apologies for the delay...I'm not on the net 24/7...
Yes, a 'clean' and 2.2.x build goes to completion without issue.
Norm
On 8/01/2017 12:29 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Great catch, thanks Norm. That too is part of the r1753592 backport
>> proposal, hoping someone is willing to look at these proposals.
>
> Now backported to 2.2.x (r1777775), along with other accepted "SNI" patches.
> Norm, does it work for you?
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
>> NormW in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:31:32 +1100):
>>> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff
>>> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591)
>>> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@
>>> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to give
>>> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status code.
>>> */
>>> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
>>> saved_status = r->status;
>>> r->status = access_status;
>>> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
>>> /*
>>> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
>>> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was intentional.
>>
>> r (or rather r->status) is changed in between the added line and the
>> deleted line, so it seems better to do it like this:
>
> Right, though r1777775 combined another change which avoided the
> warning altogether.
>
> Thanks anyway Norm/Jan for testing/review.
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
>
Re: httpd-2.2.x and C89... ;-(
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Great catch, thanks Norm. That too is part of the r1753592 backport
> proposal, hoping someone is willing to look at these proposals.
Now backported to 2.2.x (r1777775), along with other accepted "SNI" patches.
Norm, does it work for you?
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> NormW in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:31:32 +1100):
>> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff
>> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591)
>> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@
>> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to give
>> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status code.
>> */
>> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
>> saved_status = r->status;
>> r->status = access_status;
>> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
>> /*
>> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
>> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was intentional.
>
> r (or rather r->status) is changed in between the added line and the
> deleted line, so it seems better to do it like this:
Right, though r1777775 combined another change which avoided the
warning altogether.
Thanks anyway Norm/Jan for testing/review.
Regards,
Yann.
Re: httpd-2.2.x and C89... ;-(
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Great catch, thanks Norm. That too is part of the r1753592 backport
proposal, hoping someone is willing to look at these proposals.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:31 PM, NormW <no...@gknw.net> wrote:
> G/M
> Did a test build of the 2.2.x tree and all builds nicely with exception of
> the following; if release is 'in progress' I leave to others to decide what
> to do about it.
>
>> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff
>> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591)
>> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@
>> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order
>> to give
>> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status
>> code.
>> */
>> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r,
>> conf);
>> saved_status = r->status;
>> r->status = access_status;
>> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r,
>> conf);
>> /*
>> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
>> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was
>> intentional.
>
>
> Norm
Re: httpd-2.2.x and C89... ;-(
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
NormW in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:31:32 +1100):
> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff
> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
> ===================================================================
> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591)
> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy)
> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@
> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to give
> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status code.
> */
> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> saved_status = r->status;
> r->status = access_status;
> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> /*
> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was intentional.
r (or rather r->status) is changed in between the added line and the
deleted line, so it seems better to do it like this:
> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to give
> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status code.
> */
> + int post_status;
> saved_status = r->status;
> r->status = access_status;
> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> + post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf);
> /*
> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by
> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was intentional.
--
Jan