Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 55893 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2001 07:51:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 55882 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 07:51:03 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:51:11 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: 2_0_28 tarballs rolled and available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, sterling wrote: > As far as your suggested patch - why is that better (and don't say > performance wise - with all the string comparisons going on in a > request a small while loop in an error case won't affect that much)? I personally just think it's more clear what's going on without the loop than with it. Anyway, they both passed the httpd-test suite. (Not that the test suite actually catches this problem right now, but that's another matter. I verified this fix by hand with the test case you provided, and httpd-test tells me it didn't break anything else.) I just committed Justin's version because I think it's more clear. If somebody wants to stick in an AP_DEBUG_ASSERT to make sure r->next is NULL when we enter the function, that's fine by me. Thanks! --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA