On 13 Apr 2008, at 08:03, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paul Nasrat w > rites: >> >> On 12 Apr 2008, at 19:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >>> Your patch breaks the convention that compiled code only calls VRT_* >>> functions, you need to keep a VRT_re_test() wrapper around for that >>> reason. >> >> I'm not sure that's breaking that convention - the call chain is in >> vcc_regexp and it's a test before generating the C for the compiled >> vcl binary. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "compiled >> code" in this case - I think that you mean that any generated C from >> vcl should only call VRT_* functions, which this patch doesn't >> change, >> as it's a validity check before code generation occurs. > > Correct, but your patch removes a VRT_ function which the generated > code needs in order to run...
I had a look and if we just rerun vcc_gen_fixed_token.tcl after the patch it does the right thing and, there is nothing in the vcl code that generates that function - it was purely used at compile time not run time. After doing this if I look for any references to the VRT_re_test call there are none. I don't think this method was generated, just grouped in with the other regex code but only used in vcc_string.c I'm happy to come up with a patch that keeps a wrapper, but from my reading of the code I'm not sure in this instance it is required. >> I looked on http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/DeveloperResources >> but didn't see a mention of this convention - is there another >> place I >> should be looking so that I can understand the coding conventions of >> the project? > > They're not well documented, sorry. I'll try to put a wiki page together with what I've learned about vcl internals (adding/removing stuff, etc). Paul _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
