On 07/20/2010 08:43 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 July 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 07/19/2010 12:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> +
>>> + ap_module_short_names[m->module_index] =
>>> strdup(sym_name);
>> Why not using pools here instead of malloc / free?
>
> Because it didn't work. But looking at the code again, I believe this
> is due to ap_setup_prelinked_modules calling ap_add_module with the
> wrong pool. ap_setup_prelinked_modules is called only once and should
> therefore use process->pool instead of process->pconf. Do you agree?
>
>
Not sure, because ap_add_module calls
ap_add_module_commands(m, p);
/* FIXME: is this the right place to call this?
* It doesn't appear to be
*/
ap_register_hooks(m, p);
with this pool. So this would need closer investigation if
process->pool is correct for them as well in this case.
But yes, if this fits process->pool is the correct choice IMHO.
Regards
RĂ¼diger