From dev-return-24559-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Wed Dec 14 16:14:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE85F9DCD for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72013 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 71962 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 71954 invoked by uid 99); 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO fc14x86v0.jboss.hr) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username mturk, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:14:19 +0000 Message-ID: <4EE8CB54.2050006@apache.org> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:14:12 +0100 From: Mladen Turk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111208 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release apr-util 1.4.1 References: <4EE50935.9010502@kippdata.de> <4EE81741.8000001@rowe-clan.net> <4EE875DE.2070304@apache.org> <4EE8AF5D.6090604@kippdata.de> In-Reply-To: <4EE8AF5D.6090604@kippdata.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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