[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: svn commit: r1828926 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy.xml include/ap_mmn.h modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:37 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Bill or Yann, do you remember the specific gotcha with setting aside
>> > addl bits and re-using them later?
>> I've never thought it was an issue (re compat) to add some bit(s) in a
>> bitfield if there is a hole, wherever this field is in the struct.
>> It doesn't change the size and there is no way for the user to have
>> used the address of any bit in the first place (it can't break
>> anything IMHO).
>> Bill objected to this, I can't remember why (and he is in better
>> position to explain it), status quo so far...
> Just to be clear, I am talking about claiming the lost ones _before_
> the struct is further extended with a reserved :31 (or whatever) as
> opposed to going back and claiming gaps from the past. Maybe the
> former is OK.

I think "reserved" or not doesn't change anything, name it or not the
hole is there in any case.
Why extending firstbit:1;reserved:31 to e.g.
firstbit:1;secondbit:1;reserved:30 would be more compatible than the
implicit firstbit:1;secondbit:1 ?
Both should be allowed IMHO.