httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: BRIGADE_NORMALIZE is bad coding example
Date Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:39:31 GMT
--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:24 PM -0400 Glenn Strauss 
<gs-apache-dev@gluelogic.com> wrote:

> Right.  I didn't say it was a problem in practice.
> I did say that it was a terrible piece of code, and since this list
> often refers people to "look at the code", it should be fixed, IMHO.
> It is a _bad_ and _broken_ example of how to loop through a brigade.

Yah, but we don't publicize it: which is why I think your subject clearly 
overreaches.  We even have a comment that says this is bad.  (But, we're also 
not perfect and it should be corrected.)  I'm guessing we never scrutinized 
NORMALIZE_BRIGADE when we tossed APR_BRIGADE_FOREACH.  *shrug*

So, I don't think most people would latch on to that code as our canonical 
example of iterating through a brigade.

> As for C99 extensions, I understand that it is not available on all
> platforms, but why can't new code checked in include the 'restrict'
> keyword?  Just like there is an APR_INLINE macro, why isn't there
> an APR_RESTRICT macro indirection?  Would a patch implementing such
> in APR be accepted for APR 1.0?

APR 1.0 is already frozen for its 1.0 release.  While APR_INLINE has a 
legitimate purpose for us, I just don't see the same for APR_RESTRICT.  It 
seems to be another case of the C99 folks adding needless bloat.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message