apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/unix sendrecv.c
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:34:30 GMT

> >   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.  :-)

Ryan


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mime
View raw message