On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2012 8:39 AM, "Johan Corveleyn" <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>... > >> BTW, I noticed that, before r1209610, my release build was failing for >> another reason: >> >> ..\..\..\subversion\libsvn_subr\debug.c(111): error C4013: 'SVN_DBG' >> undefined; assuming extern returning int > > Right. SVN_DBG should not be committed, or the usages should be wrapped with > #ifdef SVN_DEBUG. > >> >> (this started happening after r1209598, which said "Add a debug macro >> to print a prop hash." --- before r1209598 all was ok) >> >> I assumed that was the reason for r1209610: to make the builds, which >> didn't define SVN_DEBUG (release builds), working again after r1209598 >> broke them. Except that it doesn't fix the problem for the Windows >> compiler / linker (cf. danielsh's extractor.py pointer). >> >> So, if we just revert r1209610, the (release) builds will fail again >> for this other reason. > > I think the functions should *always* exist, so that we don't have to mess > with DLLs that have different sets of entrypoints based on how they were > compiled. Madness. > > My recommendation is to move the #ifdef guards to the function content. Just > make them noops in release builds. Then you can mix/match debug/release no > problem.
Ah yes, I'm beginning to understand. Actually, the only problematic function is the new-in-r1209598 svn_dbg__print_props, and then only the single line with SVN_DBG in the for-loop. So I see 3 options for the scope of #ifdef guard: 1. as small as possible: just around line 114 (the single SVN_DBG). 2. a little larger: around the entire body of svn_dbg__print_props. 3. still larger: around all of the individual bodies of svn_dbg__preamble, svn_dbg__printf and svn_dbg__print_props. Hmmm, this is not my forte, but intuitively I'd go for option 2. Any opinions? Or other solutions? Can svn_dbg__print_props avoid the use of SVN_DBG? I guess not ... -- Johan
