OK, I get it. Thanks for your answer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 发件人：Maxim Dounin <mdou...@mdounin.ru> 发送时间：2022年12月5日(星期一) 04:13 收件人：nginx-devel <nginx-devel@nginx.org> 主 题：Re: Fixed gzip_disable_degradation defined without NGX_HTTP_DEGRADATION (broken by 3b522d7a5b34). Hello! On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:16:44PM +0800, 杜叶飞(淮叶) via nginx-devel wrote: > I think gzip_disable_degradation needs NGX_HTTP_DEGRADATION in order to be > consistent with where used. > details: https://hg.nginx.org/nginx/rev/3b522d7a5b34 > <https://hg.nginx.org/nginx/rev/3b522d7a5b34 > The revision you've linked explains why this "#if" is not really needed even if we are concerned about saving these two bits in the location configuration structure (and we aren't really concerned anyway). Further, the patch you've suggested breaks binary compatibility between nginx builds with and without the degradation module without restoring appropriate flag in the binary signature. This is clearly incorrect behaviour which can result in segmentation faults or other unexpected behaviour if modules compiled with different assumptions are loaded into nginx. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list -- nginx-devel@nginx.org To unsubscribe send an email to nginx-devel-le...@nginx.org
_______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list -- nginx-devel@nginx.org To unsubscribe send an email to nginx-devel-le...@nginx.org
