httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch ...@sfritsch.de>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1002824 [1/4] - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: ./ modules/ssl/
Date Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:06:38 GMT
On Thursday 30 September 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 30.09.2010 11:08, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 September 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
> >> On 30.09.2010 10:24, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 30 September 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>>> On 9/29/2010 6:49 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> >>>>> Am 30.09.2010 01:17, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
> >>>>>> a touch would probably do ... - if not I will face same for
> >>>>>> NetWare ...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> just checked, and beside some new prototype warnings:
> >>>>> Compiling ssl_expr_scan.c
> >>>>> ### mwccnlm Compiler:
> >>>>> #    File: ssl_expr_scan.c
> >>>>> # ------------------------
> >>>>> #    2066:  {
> >>>>> # Warning:  ^
> >>>>> #   function has no prototype
> >>>>> ### mwccnlm Compiler:
> >>>>> #    2142:  {
> >>>>> # Warning:  ^
> >>>>> #   function has no prototype
> >>> 
> >>> No, those are the ones I mentioned in the commit log. They
> >>> appear with gcc, too:
> >>> 
> >>> ssl_expr_scan.c:2065: warning: no previous prototype for
> >>> 'ssl_expr_yyget_column'
> >>> ssl_expr_scan.c:2141: warning: no previous prototype for
> >>> 'ssl_expr_yyset_column'
> >>> 
> >>> If someone has a the latest Fedora and can regenerate the file,
> >>> that would probably fix it. Otherwise it will have to wait
> >>> until the fixed flex is in Debian, I am too lazy to install a
> >>> new flex from source for just too warnings.
> >> 
> >> Do you have a pointer to the flex source code you want to be
> >> used? I build the toolchain for myself on Solaris, so I can
> >> easily update from 2.5.35 to some custom version to do this
> >> test.
> > 
> > That would be nice. There is no official release, yet, but this
> > bug report has a patch:
> > 
> > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3029024&group_id=
> > 97492&atid=618177
> > 
> > (I have read somewhere that Fedora has included the patch)
> 
> I also get the warning (only when using "-Wmissing-prototypes", the
> flag "-Wall" didn't produce the warning) for the original file.
> 
> I rebuilt flex with the above patch (original flex 2.5.35, no other
> patch) and regenerated the file. No more warning and two additional
> prototypes are there:
> 
> +int ssl_expr_yyget_column  (yyscan_t yyscanner );
> +
> +void ssl_expr_yyset_column (int column_no ,yyscan_t yyscanner );
> +
> 
> The full diff is available at:
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/patched-flex-ssl_expr_scan_
> c.patch
> 
> Unfortunately it looks like my flex plus one patch also changes
> other stuff, which looks more correct in your version, likely
> because your flex already contains other pathces (the original
> version 2.5.35 is already about 2 years old, but there is no more
> recent official release).
> 
> So I'm not sure, what we should check in. I'd say leave as if, as
> results will vary depending on the system the RM uses and the
> missing prototype warnings are not too bad.

Thanks for trying. I agree that we should leave it as it is for the 
time being.

> I also rebuild ssl_expr_parse.(c|h) with bison 2.4.2 I had at hand.
> Latest would be 2.4.3. The header file does not contain any
> relevant difference. The source files does have some differences
> in the macro use.
> 
> Full diff here:
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/bison-2_4_2-ssl_expr_parse.
> patch
> 
> Finally: I tweaked the Makefile a bit to allowe out of tree use of
> the flex and bison targets (r1003061). There is still an open
> point for me:
> 
> at the moment when doing an out of tree build and when the
> timestamps are not right, the targets generate the new source and
> header files in the build directory, not the source directory. At
> least when I tested it, those win, so the compiled code uses the
> right ones without overriding the original ones. Is that like we
> want it, or do we actually want to regenerate in the source
> directory?

I think if one builds out of tree, one does not want the real source 
directories to be modified. So the current behaviour seems fine to me.

Mime
View raw message