harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:57:08 GMT
Nathan Beyer said the following on 02.04.2008 5:47:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@apache.org> wrote:
>>  > On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>  >  > I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
>>  >  > patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
>>  >  > pass without failure or error.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
>>  >  > and remove the patches tonight.
>>  >
>>  >  Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
>>  >  value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  No - i'll give that a try and see what happens.
>>  -Nathan
> 
> I must be an idiot, but how do you do this? On WinXP, when I "set
> BAD_VAR=", nothing is added. When I set an existing variable, it's
> removed from the environment. Is this something that can be done on
> other versions of Windows?

Hmm indeed. The funny thing I is that I cannot reproduce it myself. 
Looks like such variables are not allowed to be set in legal ways. But I 
do remember that windows set that PRINTER variable to have no value when 
no printer was defined...

Ok, I think we are safe to go with APR 1.2.12. If someone encounters 
this bug again we'll know where to look.

>>
>>
>>  >  > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >  > > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
>>  >  > >  x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem
to
>>  >  > >  all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
>>  >  > >  running the tests on Linux x86.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > >  On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>
wrote:
>>  >  > >  > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>>  >  > >  >
>>  >  > >  >  I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems
1.2.12 is
>>  >  > >  >  necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>>  >  > >  >
>>  >  > >  >  I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
>>  >  > >  >
>>  >  > >  >  -Nathan
>>  >
>>  >  --
>>  >  Gregory
>>  >
>>


-- 
Gregory


Mime
View raw message