[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Constifying patches break bindings

From: Роман Донченко <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:28:43 +0300

Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> писал в своём письме Tue, 23 Mar 2010
16:43:30 +0300:

> Posted to dev@, in an attempt to get the buildbots green again:
>
>
> (Yesterday evening; times in CET / UTC+1)
>
>
> 22:20 < CIA-77> rdonch * r926343
> /trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/svn_diff.i:
> * subversion/bindings/swig/svn_diff.i:
>
> Immutablize some struct members, ...
>
> 22:27 <@Bert> RDonch: Does this fix the buildbots?
>
> 22:28 < RDonch> Bert: almost.
>
> <snip>
>
> 22:31 <@Bert> RDonch: It fails on the x64-ubuntu-gcc bot.. But it looks
> like
> the centos bot gets further than before
>
> 22:31 < RDonch> julianf: in r922239 you add a bunch of const qualifiers
> and
> say that it's a backwards-compatible change
>
> - but is it? E.g. a function that was a
> svn_ra_file_rev_handler_t will no longer be, causing compiler
>
> errors.
>
> 22:31 < RDonch> Bert: ^ this is the remaining failure.
>

I'll add that breaking bindings is a symptom of a larger problem — that
constifying callback definitions breaks API compatibility, code that used
to compile now doesn't. Fixing the bindings is entirely trivial, but I
don't want to do that until I'm assured that the API break is, in fact,
legitimate.

Roman.
Received on 2010-03-23 16:29:39 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.