From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:50 AM
> One short comment... > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 01:25:33AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > From: "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:48 PM > >... > > +++ apr_general.h 28 Jan 2002 21:41:22 -0000 > > @@ -133,13 +133,21 @@ > > * have it > > */ > > #if (!APR_HAVE_STRCASECMP) && (APR_HAVE_STRICMP) > > +#ifdef _MSC_VER > > +#define strcasecmp(s1, s2) _stricmp(s1, s2) > > > > > > You are looking to define a new APR_HAVE__STRICMP (or APR_HAVE_uSTRICMP, > > whichever you find clearer.) It must be defined to 0 in apr.h.in. > > > > _MSC_VER is not namespace protected for APR, and apr_general.h is included > > _MSC_VER doesn't have to be namespace protected. He's only testing for it > (to see if the compiler sets it). Why would it have to be protected? For the same reason as HAVE_FOO must be protected using buildconf, etc. Only MS considers _MSC_VER a globally recognized symbol. Since this is not a win32 specific (or even a win32+os2+netware common file) - it's not even scoped within APR but has global scope, we need some alternate APR_HAVE symbol. If you hadn't noticed, we are having enough namespace problems lately. I'm only being incredibly picky about apr/include/*.h ... our own sources either build or die, and someone will report that. In foo/win32/*.c or include/arch/win32 this is obviously not an issue at all. Even in foo/unix/*.c or include/apr.hw it's not that significant. Bill
