Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <434CEB2C.7040604@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:53:32 +0200
From: Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r312964 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x: CHANGES
 modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
References: <20051011214336.40947.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
 <20051012100928.GA10867@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051012100928.GA10867@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 10/12/2005 12:09 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:43:35PM -0000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...
> 
>>Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?rev=312964&r1=312963&r2=312964&view=diff
>>==============================================================================
>>--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c (original)
>>+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c Tue Oct 11 14:43:32 2005
>>@@ -1212,24 +1212,34 @@
>>                                                   const char *url)
>> {
>>     proxy_worker *worker;
>>-    char *c, *uri = apr_pstrdup(p, url);
>>+    proxy_worker *max_worker = NULL;
>>+    int max_match = 0;
>>+    int url_length;
>>+    int worker_name_length;
>>+    char *c;
>>     int i;
>> 
>>-    c = strchr(uri, ':');
>>+    c = strchr(url, ':');
>>     if (c == NULL || c[1] != '/' || c[2] != '/' || c[3] == '\0')
>>        return NULL;
> 
> 
> That broke the -Wall -Werror build with --enable-maintainer-mode
> 
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> proxy_util.c: In function 'ap_proxy_get_worker':
> proxy_util.c:1222: warning: passing argument 1 of 'ap_strchr' discards qualifiers from pointer target type

Sorry for the stupid question: Is this because *url is const?

> 
> is this the code which is about to be removed anyway?

Yes, I currently discuss this with Jim. The question is if this check is a valuable quick way or not.
I don't think that this is the case in a correctly configured system, but I would like to wait
for Jims response on that.

Regards

Rüdiger