Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 85286 invoked by uid 500); 8 Apr 2002 09:53:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 85272 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 09:53:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:53:13 +0400 (MSD) From: Igor Sysoev X-Sender: is@is To: Dale Ghent cc: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Does Solaris qsort suck In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Dale Ghent wrote: > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote: > > | Well, That seems to be the view if one reads the following threads at > | the postgres mailing list and Sun's developer connection > | > | http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-04/msg00103.php > | http://forum.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=4&thread=7231 > | > | Don't know if those cases would be seen by Solaris users of Apache > | 2.0.x, but it might be useful to snarf FreeBSD's qsort.c and link Apache > | to it if a Solaris platform is detected > > Solaris 8 included a huge increase in qsort performance. What version are > you using? I see this bug on SunOS XXXXXXXXX 5.8 Generic_108529-07 i86pc i386 i86pc But this bug does not affect Apache. Igor Sysoev