httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Havard" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server protocol.c
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:19:33 GMT
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:18:55 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>From: "Greg Stein" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:56 AM
>> Um. That doesn't look right.
>It doesn't but it is ;)
>> Those macros are based on *linkage*, not usage. If server/protocol.c occurs
>> within the "core" DLL on Windows, then it must use the AP_CORE_DECLARE()
>> macro.
>> Those macros have nothing to do with visibility, and everything to do with
>> linkage.
>> OtherBill knows the most here, so let's hear his opinion here. I only
>> /think/ something may be wrong here.
>Would be wrong, except that AP_DECLARE refers to the core module.  The difference
>is an abstract concept that goes back to early Apache 1.3 porting.  In theory, we
>could ignore all AP_CORE_DECLARES (leave them un-dllexported) and have very
>private core module.  In fact, everyone seems to dip their hands in there so
>they are exported, I believe.
>So today, what Doug changed should be a noop - and CORE is not much more than
>window dressing to tell folks the API is internal and subject to change.  Not
>that there is much difference in the 2.0 tree between core/non-core, or stable
>APIs and fluid APIs :)

Actually, build/make_exports.awk does NOT currently include
AP_CORE_DECLAREd functions so platforms that depend on it to generate the
list of core exports do not export core functions. This is actually a
problem because mod_proxy uses several core functions so it fails to build
correctly as a DSO. The offending symbols are:


Should they get their CORE removed too?

 |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!                   |
 |  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |

View raw message