On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 2012 8:39 AM, "Johan Corveleyn" <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BTW, I noticed that, before r1209610, my release build was failing for
>>> another reason:
>>> ..\..\..\subversion\libsvn_subr\debug.c(111): error C4013: 'SVN_DBG'
>>> undefined; assuming extern returning int
>> Right. SVN_DBG should not be committed, or the usages should be wrapped with
>> #ifdef SVN_DEBUG.
>>> (this started happening after r1209598, which said "Add a debug macro
>>> to print a prop hash." --- before r1209598 all was ok)
>>> I assumed that was the reason for r1209610: to make the builds, which
>>> didn't define SVN_DEBUG (release builds), working again after r1209598
>>> broke them. Except that it doesn't fix the problem for the Windows
>>> compiler / linker (cf. danielsh's extractor.py pointer).
>>> So, if we just revert r1209610, the (release) builds will fail again
>>> for this other reason.
>> I think the functions should *always* exist, so that we don't have to mess
>> with DLLs that have different sets of entrypoints based on how they were
>> compiled. Madness.
>> My recommendation is to move the #ifdef guards to the function content. Just
>> make them noops in release builds. Then you can mix/match debug/release no
> Ah yes, I'm beginning to understand.
> Actually, the only problematic function is the new-in-r1209598
> svn_dbg__print_props, and then only the single line with SVN_DBG in
> the for-loop. So I see 3 options for the scope of #ifdef guard:
> 1. as small as possible: just around line 114 (the single SVN_DBG).
> 2. a little larger: around the entire body of svn_dbg__print_props.
> 3. still larger: around all of the individual bodies of
> svn_dbg__preamble, svn_dbg__printf and svn_dbg__print_props.
> Hmmm, this is not my forte, but intuitively I'd go for option 2. Any
> opinions? Or other solutions? Can svn_dbg__print_props avoid the use
> of SVN_DBG? I guess not ...
Ok, I went for option 2, in r1228957.
If anyone thinks this should be fixed in another way, feel free to do so ...
Received on 2012-01-08 22:21:34 CET