On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Great catch, thanks Norm. That too is part of the r1753592 backport > proposal, hoping someone is willing to look at these proposals.
Now backported to 2.2.x (r1777775), along with other accepted "SNI" patches. Norm, does it work for you? On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Jan Ehrhardt <php...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote: > NormW in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:31:32 +1100): >> D:\Projects\svn\httpd-2.2.x>svn diff >> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c >> =================================================================== >> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (revision 1777591) >> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (working copy) >> @@ -1088,9 +1088,9 @@ >> * backend itself but by the proxy e.g. a bad gateway) in order to >> give >> * ap_proxy_post_request a chance to act correctly on the status >> code. >> */ >> + int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf); >> saved_status = r->status; >> r->status = access_status; >> - int post_status = proxy_run_post_request(worker, balancer, r, conf); >> /* >> * Only restore r->status if it has not been changed by >> * ap_proxy_post_request as we assume that this change was >> intentional. > > r (or rather r->status) is changed in between the added line and the > deleted line, so it seems better to do it like this: Right, though r1777775 combined another change which avoided the warning altogether. Thanks anyway Norm/Jan for testing/review. Regards, Yann.
