[PATCH take 2] document rings

Okay, a few minor tweaks, and here's the revised patch. FYI, ScanDoc is throwing in an erroneous line at the top of the output, something about optional functions. That really confused me at first, until I realized that it's bleed-over from apr_optional.h, which attempts to document macros witho

RE: [PATCH] document rings

> -Original Message- > I don't have ScanDoc and the appropriate > template to check it for sure (where are they, anyway?). Duh, 'make docs'. I guess I do have them. =-) Let me tweak a little bit and I'll resubmit the patch in a little while. --Cliff

[PATCH] document rings

Attached is a patch that fully documents apr_ring.h in APR-UTIL. I looked back over it several times, but there's a slim chance of typos/cut-and-paste-o's/etc, so another pair of eyes on it would be good. I guess it would also be nice if someone could double-check to make sure that ScanDoc can f

[PATCH] correct some errors in bucket docs

In the process of documenting the rings, I found some out-of-date or just plain incorrect bits in the bucket documentation... attached is a patch to fix them. --Cliff --- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 804-244-8615 Charlottesville,

Re: Request For Volunteers: POSIX 1003.4a threads

Well, I already volunteered privately, but I will now happily volunteer publicly as well. Sander, just point me to a mailing list. :-) Ryan On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Sander Striker wrote: > Hi, > > We're looking for volunteers that will help us implement > a wrapper around APR to make it look lik

Request For Volunteers: POSIX 1003.4a threads

Hi, We're looking for volunteers that will help us implement a wrapper around APR to make it look like POSIX 1003.4a (POSIX draft 4) threads. We need this to serve an existing 8 million line project. Instead of going through all the sources, we thought it best to just provide what it is asking fo

Re: build blues

> We can't use --force. config.guess and config.sub are not stock in our > tree. Brilliant. I see it isn't up-to-date with recent autoconf either. It looks like the only changes we made that are not obsoleted by the newer autoconf release are the ones for OS/2 emx. A point of order: committing

Re: build blues

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:46:49PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > >... > > > > >* libtoolize --automake --copy --force > > > > > [the only way we ever want to call libtoolize] > > > > > > > >

Re: build blues

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:46:49PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >... > > > >* libtoolize --automake --copy --force > > > > [the only way we ever want to call libtoolize] > > > > > > why --automake? > > > > It is the option libtoolize is given

RE: docco problem (was RE: Chunk filter problem?)

> Didn't you say that mod_include used them the other direction? Does this > mean that mod_include is now wrong? I said that I thought it was, yeah, but that was after only a very brief inspection. It turns out that it's just playing tricky games, I think. I'm still trying to digest mod_include

Re: build blues

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 02:01:33PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:58:04AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: > > Is it possible to get a partial checkin? That'll let us review pieces as > > they go (easier to do a small bit, than a huge one), and you won't have to > > worry about

Re: build blues

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:46:49PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >... > > >* libtoolize --automake --copy --force > > > [the only way we ever want to call libtoolize] > > > > why --automake? > > It is the option libtoolize is given to tell it to shut up because we > are acting like autom

Re: Duh?

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:21:34PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote: > > Whenever I do a cvs update from the httpd-2.0 directory I get these... > > > > ? srclib/apr-util/PrintPath > > ? srclib/apr-util/lt.debug > > ? srclib/apr-util/include/apu_config.h.in >

Re: docco problem (was RE: Chunk filter problem?)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:25:31PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > Okay, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think I spotted a problem in the > > chunk filter such that two immortal buckets are getting inserted AFTER the > > EOS bucket by means of transposed parameter

Re: cvs commit: apr/include apr_want.h

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:10:58PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > trawick 01/02/13 04:10:58 > > Modified:include apr_want.h > Log: > Including the right header file(s) for ntohl et al is a little bit > cumbersome, so teach apr_want.h how to do that on the app's behalf > when