Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63889 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2008 22:03:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2008 22:03:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 21553 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2008 22:03:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 21500 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2008 22:03:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 21489 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2008 22:03:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:03:22 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bojan@rexursive.com designates 203.171.74.242 as permitted sender) Received: from [203.171.74.242] (HELO beauty.rexursive.com) (203.171.74.242) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:02:33 +0000 Received: from [10.1.120.24] (shrek.rexursive.com [10.1.120.24]) by beauty.rexursive.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC56440330; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:02:19 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [vote] Release apr[-util] 1.3.1 From: Bojan Smojver To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." Cc: Ruediger Pluem , APR Developer List In-Reply-To: <485553D9.3060402@rowe-clan.net> References: <4854993F.9060100@rowe-clan.net> <4854F837.5000505@apache.org> <48550E76.6050002@apache.org> <485553D9.3060402@rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:02:19 +1000 Message-Id: <1213567339.2734.7.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 (2.22.2-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 12:39 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Do you know offhand that multiple AC_CACHE_VAL( ac_cv_val, ...) entries > are legit? Provided they are, your patch appears to handle all of the > nesting without introducing other duplications! The AC_CACHE_VAL should be changed to AC_CACHE_CHECK, which then provides pretty printing of messages for non-nested version of checks. -- Bojan