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

Re: OWC meets subversion.

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:32:05 +0200

On Monday, November 14, 2011 9:59 PM, "NormW" <normw_at_gknw.net> wrote:
> G/E,
> On 14/11/2011 5:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > On Monday, November 14, 2011 8:27 AM, "NormW"<normw_at_gknw.net> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >
> > Well, perhaps fix the compiler instead of rewriting everyone's switch
> > statements? :-)
> A question to that effect was asked on the OWC developer site and the
> reply suggested that adding 64-bit int switch support would be of such a
> major effort this close to 2.0 (rumored March 2012) that it would not be
> considered. Note that that question preceded this thread.
> If the life of Subversion hung on need for 64-switch blocks, would
> happily aim OWC at other tasks, but the one instance (for now anyway)
> that can readily be replaced as shown adds yet another compiler (also
> Open Source) to the potential build methods.

Sure. And if someone runs into it in the course of subversion
development (rather than OWC development), I'll happily commit the patch
that fixes it. Until then, I still think the compiler should be fixed;
trying to remove the switch() statement from C is going to be rather

> > (But not opposed to committing this if people can't build svn
> > because of this.)
> >
> >> FYI: The 'warn' blips; at least the first 2 are already noted in the
> >> source, while for #3 it's unclear how this can return an int....
> >>
> >
> > If we make this return an int then we'd have to cast it at the callsite
> > (it's a callback function). *shrug*
> Not a dev guru, but AFAIK a call to abort() is not likely to return to
> the 'abort_on_pool_failure' function at all, so it would more logically
> be defined as 'void' and not 'int', which removes the compiler warning
> about a missing 'return'??

Yes, but we'd need to add a cast at the point where we call
apr_pool_create_ex() and pass a pointer to abort_on_pool_failure() as a
parameter. I'm not against that, just too lazy to do it :-)

(I'm assuming that either you or one of our committers will prepare
fixes, by the way, so I haven't bothered to do them myself.)
Received on 2011-11-14 12:32:37 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.