On Tuesday 22 November 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * To reduce counting overhead, we only count calls to
> > + * ap_expr_eval_word() and ap_expr_eval(). The max number of
> > + * stack frames is larger by some factor.
> > + */
> > +#define AP_EXPR_MAX_RECURSION 20
> > +static int inc_rec(ap_expr_eval_ctx_t *ctx)
> > +{
> > + if (ctx->reclvl< AP_EXPR_MAX_RECURSION) {
> > + ctx->reclvl++;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + *ctx->err = "Recursion limit reached";
> > + /* short circuit further evaluation */
> > + ctx->reclvl = INT_MAX;
>
> When did this project adopt Posix99? Not that I'm complaining
> but that isn't a K&R construct (and this is the first such breakage
> that I'm aware of.)
I assume you refer to the INT_MAX? That's C89 according to Google. And
yes, we want to support C89 (otherwise http_log.h could have been a
lot simpler). And no, we don't want to support anything older than
C89, IMNSHO.
