apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release apr-util 1.4.1
Date Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:14:12 GMT
On 12/14/2011 03:14 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 14.12.2011 11:09, Mladen Turk wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 04:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> > Reposting for Graham's benefit, who likely skimmed over this;
>> >
>> > On 12/11/2011 1:49 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> - Windows Build system:
>> >> - all *.dep and *.mak files are missing
>> >> - in test/testutildll.dsp the probably obsolete string "NT" is
>> >> by the possibly similarly obsolete "9x"
>> >> - change of base addresses in some dsp file (might be OK)
>> >
>> > Bill asks, can you be more specific on the 3rd bullet? Because we aim
>> > for binary compatibility, that would be a (regrettable) regression. As
>> > I was traveling, I had no chance to look at this candidate.
>> >
>>
>> If you look at old version multiple modules has the same base address
>> which was probably caused by simple copy/paste.
>> Eg, multiple dbd modules had the same base address (0x6EF00000)
>> dmb modules had the same address as dbd modules.
>>
>> I only made sure they are unique, because if you try to load the
>> second dll with the same base address it'll get random one.
>
> Changes rel. 1.3.12 I observed:
>
> base address 0x6EF00000 -> 0x6EF60000 apr_dbd_freetds.dsp
> base address 0x6EF00000 -> 0x6F000000 apr_dbm_db.dsp
> base address 0x6EF10000 -> 0x6F010000 apr_dbm_gdbm.dsp
>

Right, as you see apr_dbd_freetds and apr_dbm_db had the
same base address.
apr_dbm_gdbm had the same address as apr_dbd_odbc module.

That was wrong at the first place, so hardly any regression.


Regards
-- 
^TM

Mime
View raw message