httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: binary backwards compatability.
Date Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:55:25 GMT
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 07:47:13PM -0600, Me at IO wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 05:40:56PM -0800, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > > making a copy of a request_rec sounds cary to me, i wouldn't want to
> > > encourage modules to do that.  any examples of this yet?
> > 
> > I sure can't think of a reason to do so, but why else is
> > sizeof(request_rec) important?
> Oh, yeah, the structure field reordering problem. AFAIK, an ANSI C
> compiler is allowed to rearrange fields in a structure on a whim. This
> is why adding fields to the end of request_rec is dangerous, right?

no no, it's not allowed to do any re-ordering.

although damnit i wish it were... because if it could re-order based on
maximal packing then we could group structure elts in orders which make
sense from a documentation point of view, rather than orders which make
sense for reducing structure size.


View raw message