Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 30845 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2001 09:04:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 30834 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 09:04:46 -0000 Sender: jfclere@vtxrm2.siemens.es Message-ID: <3A77D6A1.EC5A2A69@fujitsu.siemens.es> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:10:57 +0100 From: jean-frederic clere X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.4.0 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: APACHE20 problem with string.h and strings.h References: <3A75AD49.A8282183@fujitsu.siemens.es> <20010130091741.A98059@deejai2.mch.fsc.net> <3A769D53.2F9FB9D8@fujitsu.siemens.es> <3A76D34F.548F61D7@fujitsu.siemens.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Jeff Trawick wrote: > > jean-frederic clere writes: > > > It will not (and does not) help, the problem I have is that bzero() is > > not in the default libraries so APR cannot find it, but bzero() is > > defined in strings.h. > > There is an autoconf way to check non-default libraries. That is one > possibility. > > > Only removing strings.h or having the #define bzero after the includes > > will help... > > If APR properly detected whether or not the system had bzero(), we'd > be okay, right? Yes - In my case cc -c will work (bzero is defined in strings.h) but cc -o will failed because bzero is not in the default libraries. > > > The problem is basicly that APR redefines the system include. That is > > because the system include are after the apr*.h includes. We should not > > redefine bzero or any "system" function before the system include > > otherwise we will have problems... > > > > I would suggest to create a new apr_system_redef.h that would contain > > #define bzero (it just has to be included in > > server/mpm/prefork/prefork.c and test/test_limits.c) and any similar > > defines. > > I think I prefer dispensing with APR's definition of bzero() > altogether. Why should APR be defining such a thing? (If it needed > to provide such a thing, it should be called apr_something(). I'll > suggest on the APR list removing the bzero mapping altogether. Agreed, apr_bzero? > > -- > Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site: > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ > Born in Roswell... married an alien...