apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: apr_table_do
Date Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:36:48 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:13 AM 6/28/2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> First, why is apr_table_do APR_DECLARE_NONSTD()'d in the header file, but
>> APR_DECLARE()'d in the .c file?  I'm guessing the _NONSTD() is the right
>> one, but I'm still a bit hazy on these things.
> 
> 
> That is a bug, AFAICT.  It should be picked up by Win32 unless we neglected
> to include the relevant declaration header when we hit the function's code.
> Since it didn't, that means MSVC had overridden our preference since our
> preference couldn't be honored.  Unfortunately, as is their way, they never
> saw fit to _announce_ this with an emit.  It has been _NONSTD() all this 
> time.
> 
> The do processor fn's themselves must be exported with 
> APR_DECLARE_NONSTD(),
> and then _only_ if they need to be an exported entry point (e.g. 99% of 
> the time
> the process fn is simply a static fn in the source file that declares it.)

We really ought to have a better name than NONSTD(), coz I can't 
remember precisely what it means, and I invented it! However, ISTR its 
required if you have ... in the args?

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff


Mime
View raw message