Hi

This doesn't change anything, event-internal.h is not installed. It
needs to go in event.h.


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:56:58AM +0200, David Coppa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:03:56 +0200, David Coppa wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:33:45 -0600, David Coppa wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think about this?
> >> >
> >> > What's the gain?
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=134416408711375
> >>
> >> And performances should be far better.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > As I said, I think something like this would be the clean solution.  As
> > for performance, I don't think libevent is the bottleneck when using
> > tor, really ...
> >
> > (Also needs at least a minor shlib bump)
> >
> > Index: event-internal.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libevent/event-internal.h,v
> > retrieving revision 1.6
> > diff -u -p -r1.6 event-internal.h
> > --- event-internal.h    21 Apr 2010 20:02:40 -0000      1.6
> > +++ event-internal.h    27 Aug 2012 09:48:03 -0000
> > @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ int _evsignal_restore_handler(struct eve
> >  /* defined in evutil.c */
> >  const char *evutil_getenv(const char *varname);
> >
> > +#define _EVENT_VERSION "1.4.14b-stable"
> > +
> >  #ifdef __cplusplus
> >  }
> >  #endif
> > Index: event.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libevent/event.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.25
> > diff -u -p -r1.25 event.c
> > --- event.c     30 Aug 2010 07:54:29 -0000      1.25
> > +++ event.c     27 Aug 2012 09:48:03 -0000
> > @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ event_queue_insert(struct event_base *ba
> >  const char *
> >  event_get_version(void)
> >  {
> > -       return ("1.4.14b-stable");
> > +       return (_EVENT_VERSION);
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> 
> I'm ok with this too.
> 
> nicm?
> 
> Thanks,
> David

Reply via email to