apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Fogel <kfo...@newton.ch.collab.net>
Subject Re: apr-util #define confusion.
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:12:59 GMT
cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> Glancing through apr-util/xlate/xlate.c, I see tests and uses of both
> APU_HAVE_APR_ICONV and APU_HAS_APR_ICONV.  I'm not aware of the
> conventions in place for choosing HAVE vs. HAS -- can someone fill me
> in here?  Or, if no such conventions exist, are just there bugs in
> that code?

I should point out that this discrepancy is actually causing a problem
right now, too: Under Win32, apr-util/xlate/xlate.c:apr_xlate_open()
fails.  Its using the apr_iconv library, but it tests

   APU_HAS_APR_ICONV

...which is unset in the Windows build, because only
APU_HAVE_APR_ICONV is defined.  So needed code never gets compiled.
    ^^^^

-Karl

Mime
View raw message