On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Greg Marr wrote:
> I agree. Having macros that look like functions, but have return
> statements in them, is bad. It also prevents those macros from being
> made into inline functions without changing all the places that call
> them.
I'll consider that three +1's on concept... me, Greg Marr (yes?), and
FirstBill. I'll touch this up and commit it this afternoon. I'd also
like to remove the return NULL; lines in the macro. There are two ways to
do that:
1) ap__b = NULL; continue;
2) get rid of the malloc failure checking entirely
3) ignore this issue and leave the return NULL's in there.
I prefer #1, but I predict being overruled by the group on this since many
of you think it's better to segfault than attempt to gracefully handle
malloc failures. So assuming #2 is preferred by the group, does everyone
like the following as the new apr_bucket_do_create macro?
#define apr_bucket_do_create(ap__b,do_make) \
do { \
apr_bucket *b; \
b = calloc(1, sizeof(*b)); \
ap__b = do_make; \
APR_RING_ELEM_INIT(ap__b, link); \
} while(0)
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
