On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, [ISO-8859-15] Andr� Malo wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > + f->ctx = ctx = (void*)-1; > > I personally consider defining arbitrary pointer values as bad style, though > I'm not sure what the general opinion here is (if any). > > I'd suggest to use a static pointer, like a global > > static char foo_sentinel; /* choose a speaking name ;-) */ > /* and later */ > f->ctx = ctx = &foo_sentinel; > > Additionally - afair - the use of arbirtrary pointer values can even lead > to bus errors on not-so-usual systems (loading undefined bits into an address > register...).
Yes, you're right. Actually this patch has a deeper problem, as does the patch it fixes. Setting the headers at this point depends entirely on the behaviour of the headers filter. With current behaviour, the previous mod_deflate was broken (because it could delay setting headers until after the headers have been sent down the wire). With my patch it might still risk minor breakage (repeated gzip header) if the headers filter changes sometime in future. Any more issues with this? If not I'll make nd's fix and leave it. -- Nick Kew
