apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Fw: cvs commit: apr/network_io/unix sendrecv.c sockets.c
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2001 05:40:16 GMT
I love talking to myself, I guess... really wish we could agree to use the same
friggin reply-to mechanism for apr and new-httpd, agreeing to disagree isn't a
solution when we disagree with ourself.  Here's a belated elaboration from this
morning...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/unix sendrecv.c sockets.c


> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 11:08 AM
> 
> 
> > > > has anyone else been using apr/test/makefile.win?  With success?
> > > >
> > > > I'd just like to point out an opportunity for any win hackers, feel free
to
> > > > attack the test sources and apr-ize the unix-specific stuff.  They each
tend
> > > > to focus on a specific API, leaving a ton of non-compileable or non-functional
> > > > calls for win32 and other arcane OS's.
> 
> Just to make myself clear ... I was asking if anyone actually _builds_ the test
> suite on Win32 using makefile.win.  It was a quick hack, has fallen out of sync a
> few times, but is essentially useful.
> 
> The problems it identifies in implode/explode time, and the DSO anomilies I'll take
> a look at.  I'll be adding the filepath suite to testfile.  But I'll let some other
> taker attack the sockets and process stuff.  Basically, several tests _live_ on the
> fork(), and that just isn't a way to go on Win32.  Couple of hours to get them all
> working on win32 if someone wanted to attack.  I have a few other windmills I'm
> tilting at before AC :-)
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 



Mime
View raw message