Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> This is the right approach, I think. But the person who'd be
>> in the best place to test/commit it is Bojan. Just be sure
>> to bump the patch level in apreq_version.h, and add a comment
>> to CHANGES.
>
> This code hangs the test (Joe Orton's original suggestion):
>
> -------------------------------
> do {
> apr_bucket *f = APR_RING_FIRST(&in->list);
> apr_bucket *l = APR_RING_LAST(&in->list);
> APR_RING_UNSPLICE(f, l, link);
> APR_RING_SPLICE_TAIL(&out->list, f, l, apr_bucket, link);
> } while (e != APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(in));
> -------------------------------
>
> This code also hangs the test (Joe Schaefer's subsequent suggestion):
>
> -------------------------------
> do {
> apr_bucket *f = APR_RING_FIRST(&in->list);
> apr_bucket *l = APR_BUCKET_PREV(e);
> APR_RING_UNSPLICE(f, l, link);
> APR_RING_SPLICE_TAIL(&out->list, f, l, apr_bucket, link);
> } while (e != APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(in));
> -------------------------------
>
> When compiled with -fno-strict-aliasing, Joe Schaefer's suggestion
> passes the test, Joe Orton's suggestion hangs the test.
>
> Or maybe I misunderstood what the code should actually be?
do { ... } while (0) is better- it's no longer a loop.
What is the assembler now?
--
Joe Schaefer
