Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be
<mailto:svnlgo_at_mobsol.be?Subject=Re:%20svn%20commit:%20r984973%20-%20in%20/subversion/branches/performance/subversion:%20include/private/svn_cache.h%20libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c%20libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c%20libsvn_subr/cache-membuffer.c%20libsvn_subr/cache-memcache.c%20libsvn_subr/cache.c%20libsvn_subr/cache.>>
wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:05 PM, <stefan2_at_apache.org> wrote:
> /> Author: stefan2 /
> /> Date: Thu Aug 12 21:04:59 2010 /
> /> New Revision: 984973 /
> /> /
> /> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=984973&view=rev
> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=984973&view=rev> /
> /> Log: /
> /> Cache (almost) all representations as full text. To handle contents
> longer /
> /> than one MB, let the caches decide upon their limits. Also, reps with /
> /> rb->len == 0 may have actual content but we can only cache them once /
> /> the stream gets closed because the content end won't be detected
> before /
> /> that. /
> /> /
> /> * subversion/include/private/svn_cache.h /
> /> (svn_cache__is_cachable): declare new API function /
> /> /
> /> * subversion/libsvn_subr/cache.h /
> /> (svn_cache__vtable_t): add method pointer for is_cachable /
> /> * subversion/libsvn_subr/cache.c /
> /> (svn_cache__is_cachable): implement by forwarding to the actual
> cache object /
> /> * subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-memcache.c /
> /> (memcache_is_cachable): implement is_cachable method /
> /> (memcache_vtable): adapt vtable /
> /> * subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-membuffer.c /
> /> (svn_membuffer_cache_is_cachable): implement is_cachable method /
> /> (membuffer_cache_vtable): adapt vtable /
> /> * subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c /
> /> (inprocess_cache_is_cachable): implement is_cachable method /
> /> (inprocess_cache_vtable): adapt vtable /
> /> /
> [..]
>
> /> +static svn_boolean_t /
> /> +memcache_is_cachable(void *, apr_size_t size) /
> /> +{ /
>
> Unnamed parameters are not allowed in C, so this breaks the build in
> gcc. Assuming you're using Visual Studio, I wonder why it allows this
> to pass.
>
> Were you planning to use this first parameter?
>
> To get the build of you branch working again I've fixed this is in
> r990330 by naming and explicitly making gcc to ignore the parameter.
Interesting. I worked for GCC 4.3.3
But thanks for the patch anyways.
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2010-08-30 12:34:47 CEST