>>> On 6/5/2006 at 4:21 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> +/** >>> + * Macro to detect security related return values. >>> + */ >>> +#if defined(LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS) >>> +#define APU_LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS >>> +#elif defined(LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_RIGHTS) >>> +#define APU_LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_RIGHTS >>> +#endif >> >> Shouldn't that end with >> >> #else >> #define APU_LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS (some reasonable default) >> #endif >> >> It seems odd just to leave it undefined. > > Actually, aren't we leaving out the possiblity that both symbols exist > with slightly different meanings? > > #if defined(LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_RIGHTS) and defined(LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_RIGHTS) > #define APU_LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS(rc) ((rc == LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_ACCESS) \ > || (rc == LDAP_INSUFFICIENT_RIGHTS) > > > We made these mistakes before in httpd which is why apr_errno.h is now > the way it is. > > Bil
Yes, that is a possibility but in this case with the small number of LDAP SDKs that we support, I haven't found any evidence that it is nothing more that a remote possibility. But I have found evidence that they are two distinct #defines that share the same meaning. Brad
