On 10/12/2005 12:09 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:43:35PM -0000, Jim Jagielski wrote: > ... > >>Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c >>URL: >>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?rev=312964&r1=312963&r2=312964&view=diff >>============================================================================== >>--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c (original) >>+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c Tue Oct 11 14:43:32 >>2005 >>@@ -1212,24 +1212,34 @@ >> const char *url) >> { >> proxy_worker *worker; >>- char *c, *uri = apr_pstrdup(p, url); >>+ proxy_worker *max_worker = NULL; >>+ int max_match = 0; >>+ int url_length; >>+ int worker_name_length; >>+ char *c; >> int i; >> >>- c = strchr(uri, ':'); >>+ c = strchr(url, ':'); >> if (c == NULL || c[1] != '/' || c[2] != '/' || c[3] == '\0') >> return NULL; > > > That broke the -Wall -Werror build with --enable-maintainer-mode > > cc1: warnings being treated as errors > proxy_util.c: In function 'ap_proxy_get_worker': > proxy_util.c:1222: warning: passing argument 1 of 'ap_strchr' discards > qualifiers from pointer target type
Sorry for the stupid question: Is this because *url is const? > > is this the code which is about to be removed anyway? Yes, I currently discuss this with Jim. The question is if this check is a valuable quick way or not. I don't think that this is the case in a correctly configured system, but I would like to wait for Jims response on that. Regards Rüdiger
