apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Trawick" <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Showstoppers to apr release(?)
Date Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:57:07 GMT
On 11/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> * maybe some other issue I don't know about
> >
> > Darwin 9.  It's a clusterfuck, since we picked up on sendfile, and then
> > told them ever-so-nicely we can't compile sendrecv.c.  Joy :)
> >
> > So - backport my patch from trunk which demonstrates either my bug or
> > darwin's bug?  Or disable sendfile detection for solaris?  Or actually
> > match ifdef-for-ifdef the mess in sendfile, and disable sendfile on
> > all unimplemented platforms?  /shrug - I'm growing beyond caring at this
> > point now that I recognize apple-folks couldn't be bothered to submit
> > any patches they had used.
> Thanks Aaron for picking this up.  But I really don't want to wait a week
> to hear the semantic is right or wrong, better to simply disable the mess
> until 1.3.x
> >> then I'm willing to invest considerable time in the 36 hours to check
> >> for *regressions* on some AIX 5.x level and HP-UX/PA-RISC 11iv1, and
> >> report and perhaps even fix what I can find.
> >
> > While I was on the subject of Darwin, there's a lingering HPUX 11i issue
> > I wanted to address; HP's always claimed shl_load for 32-bit, but have
> > encouraged dlopen from the start for 64 bit.  I believe I have a reasonable
> > test for this in trunk, my last patch to configure.in.
> So... for darwin, 10.5 claims it would rather have dlopen, the patch tests
> that and passes.  Does someone have Darwin 8 (10.4) or earlier to validate
> that the old NS* dyld api is still being detected from configure on trunk?

I have 10.3.latest and will try that.

=> > You'll notice I shifted some platforms to avoid all the extra phooey of
> > testing for features we never use.  I left os390/400/aix alone.  I'm not
> > sure if you can move any of those up to the earlier "skip all the extras"
> > escape for their custom 'other' implementation?  I know aix will happily
> > use dlopen().

AIX definitely must use dlopen() except ancient (somewhere around 4.2).

> I'm verifying non-breakage on aix and hp pa-risc (no ia32/64 boxes around),
> and am backporting DSO detection if I don't find a flaw in the next few hours.

Then I'll skip those until we have a release candidate.

View raw message