apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/unix sendrecv.c
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:35:53 GMT
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:34:30PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > >   We don't actually use os_cork or os_uncork on FreeBSD, so we shouldn't
> > >   define them.  This removes some warnings.
> > >...
> > >   --- sendrecv.c	2001/01/04 22:02:34	1.55
> > >   +++ sendrecv.c	2001/01/07 00:00:07	1.56
> > >   @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@
> > >     * need to move these to the top...
> > >     */
> > >    
> > >   -#if APR_HAVE_CORKABLE_TCP
> > >   +#if APR_HAVE_CORKABLE_TCP && !defined(__FreeBSD__)
> > >    
> > >    /* TCP_CORK & TCP_NOPUSH keep us from sending partial frames when we
> > >     * shouldn't. They are however, mutually exclusive with TCP_NODELAY  
> > 
> > I don't understand this. Why don't we just /not/ define
> > APR_HAVE_CORKABLE_TCP on the FreeBSD boxes? (in the ./configure script) That
> > seems more appropriate than adding platform-specific checks into the code.
> 
> Both methods do the same thing.  I decided to put the checks in the code,
> because I am assuming that at some point we will actually add support for
> os_cork and os_uncork to the code.  I wanted the special code to disable
> os_cork and os_uncork as close to the code that would use it as
> possible.  I figured whoever adds support for os_cork and os_uncork will
> actually need to look at those functions, so they will see e
> !defined(__FreeBSD__), whereas if the special check was made in the
> configure script, that could go un-noticed when the changes were made,
> thus making it harder for the developer who does the work.
> 
> I really don't care which we choose, but the warnings were bugging me, and
> I wanted them to go away.  :-)

Makes sense. I've added a reminder to apr/STATUS.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message