httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: [Patch 2.0] Win32 Build Structure
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT
Looks like it might be faulting upon return from _ap_clear_pool.
I don't like the look of EBP in your dump either.  You are trying
a release build, correct?  What's your warning message?

This brings to mind several points;

1) We need to BASE= all the dll's, to prevent load time fixup
   (I can never comprehend how many production .dll's wander
   around with 0x10000000 base!?!) and help identify addresses.

2) We need to create .map files from the linker to assist in
   debugging the release build for others.

New projects for Wednesday, I guess.  First I'm fixing up the
98/NT explict linkage to GetFileAttributesEx, which won't bind
to the 95 kernel32 (causing Apache.exe to fail, of course).
I wonder if the bug you found might not be something similar.

I won't find out myself until it loads on 95.

The only key I'm sure we look at is:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Apache Group\Apache\2.0

ServerRoot="C:\Apache"  [or what have you.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Moon [mailto:brianm@dealnews.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 5:32 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Patch 2.0] Win32 Build Structure
> 
> 
> The dll built.  I really am interested in seeing Apache run 
> though.  I did
> not (duh) look for the conf files in the dist.  Only thing now is that
> Apache complains about the registry.  What key needs to be added?
> 
> Right now Apache starts and spits out a warning about the registry and
> GPF's:
> 
> APACHE caused an invalid page fault in
> module APRLIB.DLL at 015f:10002b41.
> Registers:
> EAX=009c0ee0 CS=015f EIP=10002b41 EFLGS=00010202
> EBX=00000008 SS=0167 ESP=0068bd44 EBP=00000001
> ECX=00000000 DS=0167 ESI=009c0ee0 FS=4ac7
> EDX=00000008 ES=0167 EDI=00000000 GS=4abe
> Bytes at CS:EIP:
> 8b 4f 04 8b 41 08 7f 06 5f 5e 33 c0 5b c3 55 8b
> Stack dump:
> 00000008 00403030 007b0e3a 10002bf8 009c0ee0 00000008 
> 00403038 009c0ee0
> 004338cd 009c0ee0 00403030 008b42e8 00000001 007b0e3a 
> 008b4298 72617774
> 
> I am not sure if this is because of the registry or not.  I 
> would think that
> Apache could recover from not finding the data in the 
> registry.  Maybe not.
> 
> Brian Moon
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> dealnews LLC
> Makers of dealnews, dealmac
> http://dealnews.com/ | http://dealmac.com/
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@lnd.com>
> To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 4:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [Patch 2.0] Win32 Build Structure
> 
> 
> > Depends on what q. you are asking....
> >
> > If you are asking how to create your vanilla http.conf, save
> > httpd.conf-dist-win as httpd.conf and replace @@ServerRoot@@
> > with the server root path.
> >
> > If you are asking how do we start building the install binaries,
> > I'd suggest we hack it one of the three ways I mentioned, just
> > pick your poison.  But... if we are asking to bundle the alpha
> > to end user-testers as binaries, I'd ask if we are even ready
> > for that yet.  It won't run on 95 (kernel32 GetFileAttributesExA
> > is missing, of course) without a rewrite using FindFirstFile,
> > and until the final touches are put on the apr, I'd suggest we
> > are way ahead of the curve.
> >
> > I know my personal list of things I want to see working needs
> > no help yet from the bugdb.  Since you are keenly interested,
> > though, I've attached the files for os/win32/installer/installdll
> > and will post up the diffs in the next go around.  Before anyone
> > thinks of committing these though - Brian, give them a whack.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian Moon [mailto:brianm@dealnews.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 3:57 PM
> > > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Patch 2.0] Win32 Build Structure
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1) Don't try aprlib.dll on installdll unless we want
> > > >    the headache - either strip ap_snprintf requirements,
> > > >    plan on linking in aprlib.dll to installdll (yuck),
> > > >    or tightly bind to the c code (not pleasent either).
> > >
> > > So basically the installer is broke for now.  Is that right?
> > > How else can I
> > > get the conf files built?
> > >
> > > Brian Moon
> > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > dealnews LLC
> > > Makers of dealnews, dealmac
> > > http://dealnews.com/ | http://dealmac.com/
> > >
> > >
> 


Mime
View raw message