On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net > > wrote: > >> Joe Orton wrote: >> > >> > Having thought about this longer, I do agree that it would be reasonable >> > to provide OPT_INCNOEXEC as a noop integer for back-compat, but, it >> > turns out we're out of bits - allow_options_t is an unsigned char and >> > we're using 2^0 through 2^7 already. :( >> >> The C langauge promotes char -> int for comparison. 256 should work fine, >> no? It would devolve to 0, of course, but 256 & 255 should test fine. >> >> Thoughts? > > > Backing up a bit... > > I originally thought we could map bit values in 2.2.x to avoid affecting > modules, but that isn't possible since includes-with-exec is two bits > instead of one. > > Mapping OPT_INCNOEXEC to a no-op integer is something that takes place at > compile time, and helps applications which reference the symbol but don't > use it in any important way. (IOW, let mod_perl and other similar tarballs > compile.) It is good in that it lets mod_perl compile, but bad in that > mod_perl continues to export the Perl mapping of OPT_INCNOEXEC even after > httpd has been upgraded and at some point later mod_perl is upgraded. > > Failing the compile is our only opportunity to catch some affected modules > (though it is a rather late opportunity since the modules will likely be > rebuilt later since they're supposed to work as-is when upgrading httpd; > somebody will grumble though). > > I don't think we should try to preserve compilability if we can't preserve > compatibility. > > >> >> > The only available option is to #define OPT_INCNOEXEC to some bogus >> > string or something; not sure I like that much better than just a clean >> > break. >> > > /* > * #define OPT_INCNOEXEC 32 > * Apache 2.2.12 and later no longer provide this. > * Applications which distinguish between includes-without-exec and > includes-with-exec > * must use different logic for 2.2.<12 and 2.2.>=12. > * Prior to 2.2.12: > * includes-without-exec: OPT_INCNOEXEC flag on, OPT_INCLUDES flag off > oops, both flags were on here > > * includes-with-exec: OPT_INCNOEXEC flag off, OPT_INCLUDES flag on > * As of 2.2.12: > * includes-without-exec: OPT_INCLUDES flag on, OPT_INC_WITH_EXEC flag > off > * includes-with-exec: OPT_INCLUDES flag on, OPT_INC_WITH_EXEC flag on > * > */ >
