apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Collins-Sussman <suss...@collab.net>
Subject Fwd: clean OSX build -- compile error.
Date Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:01:59 GMT
This is from a thread on the dev@subversion.tigris.org list.  But I'm 
guessing that apache would be affected by this problem too.

The mysterious thing is, I had no problems building and installing 
httpd-2.0.51 from scratch on this same system.  So why is it different? 
  Any thoughts?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net>
> Date: September 17, 2004 12:28:51 PM CDT
> To: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net>
> Cc: svn-dev-list <dev@subversion.tigris.org>, Greg Hudson 
> <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: clean OSX build -- compile error.
> Okay, so it's definitely a bug in the latest toolchain headers shipped 
> by Apple.  I filed a bug with them.  If I insert this bit into a 
> couple of darwin kernel headers, Subversion compiles fine with the gcc 
> -std=c89 flag:
> /* Temporary workaround for broken OSX system headers, shipped in
>    XCode 1.5.  They're declaring stuff 'static inline', and this is
>    incompatible with the '-std=c89' flag we pass to gcc.
>    See Apple bug #3805571. */
> #if defined(__APPLE__) && !defined(inline)
> #define inline __inline__
> #endif
> So, sure, I could go and remove my toolchain and install an older one. 
>  But that's not going to prepare us for the floods of bug reports that 
> come in once OSX developers start upgrading their own toolchains.  I'm 
> just the first person to try to compile Subversion with the latest 
> stuff, others will follow soon.  I think it's best to get a workaround 
> committed.
> So I tried to put this workaround into various svn header files, but 
> it's no use.  The bug is triggered by anything that #includes 
> <apr_portable.h>.  And svn C files *always* include APR headers before 
> svn headers, for obvious reasons.  So that means either:
>   * attaching this workaround to a handful of svn C files, or
>   * putting the patch in apr_portable.h, in the apr 0.9.x branch
> Both of these options kinda stink.  If we do the latter, we commit the 
> change to apr 0.9.x, then wait for apache 2.0.52?  And post a patch in 
> the meantime?  This is what we did with the bdb 4.2-detection patch 
> for apr-util way back when, and it was annoying.
> Anyone have any thoughts?  Better ideas?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

View raw message