apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sterling Hughes <sterl...@designmultimedia.com>
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2001 05:55:49 GMT
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> [ This message belongs at dev@apr.apache.org not new-httpd ]
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:46:40AM -0500, new-httpd@thewrittenword.com wrote:
> > Between Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64 UNIX, and IRIX, there are three
> > possibilities for the number of arguments to gethostbyname_r: 3, 5, 6.
> >
> > I think the test to determine the number of arguments in
> > apr_network.m4 is inadequate. The ones used by the cURL program
> > (http://curl.haxx.se) seem far more robust in that it uses AC_TRY_RUN
> > to determine the correct number of arguments rather than a modified
> I believe that AC_TRY_COMPILE_NO_WARNING is the correct test to use
> here.  We have already determined that the gethostbyname_r function
> exists - we do not need to link or run a test program.  If we have
> the wrong arguments to the function, we will receive a compiler
> warning and we will fail the test.  I do not see what the additional
> steps of the AC_TRY_RUN test will give us.
> You may be correct that the names are slightly misleading.  However,
> Sterling originally intended those values to be indicative of what
> the style was rather than how many arguments.  Personally, I don't
> care much about names.  No one is ever happy with our names anyway.
> Feel free to submit a patch that changes the #defines names if you
> want.  -- justin

    I've actually investigated cURL's solution, it was one of the
    bases for my research.  You don't need to use AC_TRY_RUN in this
    case, its simple, if it compiles without warnings -- it works.  Yes,
    there are cases where gethostbyname is broken, but there should be
    an extra check for that -- and AC_TRY_RUN() won't pick up this error
    anyway.  The approach in the apr_network.m4, shows the style of the
    arguments,not the number of arguments.  I prefer specifying style,
    because it makes more sense to me that way ("ohh, ok, this is how its
    done on glibc2 systems". :)


View raw message