httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: BaseAddress.ref needed?
Date Thu, 04 Oct 2001 02:52:28 GMT
Nope.

Maintaining a list of base addresses implies some intimate knowledge of the size
of the code segment, which we aren't privy to, and will change over a modules'
lifetime based on the type of compilation and whether it draws in static or
dynamic libraries.

It also presumes perl is installed - something others have criticized me before.
That's why we've settled on awk.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "G√ľnter Knauf" <eflash@gmx.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: BaseAddress.ref needed?


Hi Bill,
> My only problem is that I don't want to even try maintaining such a beast.
> IMHO, it's better if they express their /BASE:"0xnnnn0000" directly.
I'm also too lazy, so I made a quick hack in perl which could do the beast for us.
My idea is using a file modules.def which defines the Apache shipping modules, and a second
mymodules.def which is appended when
present. modules.def ships with Apache and everyone who is using own modules has only to maintain
a small mymodules.def with the
modules he uses. So you can reorder, comment out, insert modules and make a gap just as you
like, the script does the rest. The
module definition is simply the name and the bytes separated by comma.

What do you think?

Guenter.




Mime
View raw message