Re: [naviserver-devel] ns_proxy revisited

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

On 9/14/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Motivated by the Vlad's recent report, I took another
> tour arround the code and did yet-another cleanup phase.
> Amazing howmany things you can find when you revisit the
> code after some time...
>
> I have fixed numerous MT-safeness problems, removed the
> "-minslaves" config option and added new [ns_proxy pools]
> command. I also updated the test-suite to check more cases.
> Also the problem reported by Vlad should be fixed as well.
>
> Altogether, this thing now seems pretty usable :-)
>
> If you discover something what you can undoubtfully
> classify as a bug, plese tell me as soon as possible
> as I would like to get this code integrated in our product
> (having more testers is an obvious plus for us, hehe).
>


This code looks wrong:

  /*
   * It is pain in the neck to get a satisfactory definition of
   * u_int_XX_t or uintXX_t as different OS'es do that in different
   * header files and sometimes even do not define such types at all.
   * We choose to define them ourselves here and stop the blues.
   */

  typedef unsigned int   uint32;
  typedef unsigned short uint16;


What if int's are 64 bit?  There is this code in the Tcl example extension:


  #ifdef HAVE_INTTYPES_H
  #   include <inttypes.h>
  typedef uint32_t sha_uint32_t;
  #else
  #   if ((1<<31)<0)
  typedef unsigned long sha_uint32_t;
  #   else
  typedef unsigned int sha_uint32_t;
  #   endif
  #endif