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
Sisyphean.
> > (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