If only for trunk then I would say Yes, lets optimize these struct fields.
> On Apr 11, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h Wed Apr 11 19:11:52 2018
>> @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ typedef struct {
>> char secret[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SECRET_SIZE]; /* authentication secret
>> (e.g. AJP13) */
>> char upgrade[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SCHEME_SIZE];/* upgrade protocol used
>> by mod_proxy_wstunnel */
>> char hostname_ex[PROXY_RFC1035_HOSTNAME_SIZE]; /* RFC1035
>> compliant version of the remote backend address */
>> + apr_size_t response_field_size; /* Size of proxy response buffer in
>> bytes. */
>> + unsigned int response_field_size_set:1;
>> } proxy_worker_shared;
>
>
> If this is for trunk only, should I move the bit field up and call it
> major? I don't plan to backport it.
> Whether I move it or not, should I reserve the next range of bytes after it?
