On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:42:25AM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > Does anyone know why mod_perl is defining AP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER > > and AP_DEBUG for debug builds? (I'd check the history but minotaur is > > down again) > > I would assume it's because we want MP_MAINTAINER to enable the same > switches for mod_perl as --with-maintainer-mode does for httpd. > > > These are really up to httpd to define, or not. On the trunk (and > > hopefully soon also 2.2.x), AP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER is defined in > > ap_config.h, so this is producing myriad build warnings/failures with > > -Werror for MP_MAINTAINER=1 builds. > > ok, my compile-fu is so bad I need to ask the answer to this... > > will including ap_config.h during the normal build process trigger the > defines for when mod_perl is built without those switches?
Yes. AP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER will be defined or not (as appropriate for the compiler) regardless of whether httpd was configured with --enable-maintainer-mode. > I'm guessing it does otherwise it wouldn't throw those warnings you're > seeing... > > in all, I think all we need to do is make sure that MP_MAINTAINER=1 enables > code like this, however that is accomplished > > modperl_module.c [528]: #if defined(AP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER) > > maybe we need to change that to > > modperl_module.c [528]: #if defined(MP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER) > > ? I mean, if we want MP_MAINTAINER to enable mod_perl maintainer hooks > independently of httpd. not sure if that even makes sense, though... It doesn't make sense to me for mod_perl to define AP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER; the current sole *use* of the macro is absolutely fine though. joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
