httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jorge Schrauwen <>
Subject Re: Windows Laundry List
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 16:10:33 GMT
I'm still all for this,
But do many people use a 64-bit variant of httpd it self? I've long
since switched to linux for both my server and my development
environment but still provide binaries I compile on my website. (If
I'm lazy I get about 2-3 mails per day asking for the newest release)

So here are some statistics from
httpd/httpd-2.2.18-win64.rar 	101 (went up yesterday)
httpd/httpd-2.2.17-win64.rar 	16212
httpd/httpd-2.2.15-win64.rar 	15750
httpd/httpd-2.2.14-win64.rar 	10403
httpd/httpd-2.2.13-win64.rar 	3110
httpd/ 	801		
httpd/ 	14347
httpd/ 	1521
httpd/ 	2666
httpd/ 	2181
httpd/httpd-2.2.4_x64.exe 	4859

I wonder about the overall usage, more people seem to be compiling
them themselves recently and some other websites probably offer them.

Do the argument from a few year back still hold for the ASF not
providing them themselves still hold true for 2.3/2.4?
IIRC it had to due with VC6 being used for 3rd party module
compatibility. With the release of 2.4 series around the corner maybe
now is a good time to discuss this again?

Kind regards


On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Gregg L. Smith <> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> This was originally asked for by Jorge of back in July of 2006.
> With the simple fact that every Windows computer I have seen being sold for some time
now being x64, I do not see any reason to hold back on this since there is no functional change.
> His patch looks like it would give out a redefinition warning, so here's my version.
I'm using WIN64 where he uses _WIN64, the reason is both are being used, the former is used
in numerous files throughout httpd & APR, the latter in mpm/winnt/child.c. My x64 conversion
script defines WIN64 and the compiler _WIN64 so for me both are covered. Feel free to use
whichever you prefer.
> It would be nice to see this in both trunk & 2.2. Patch is against trunk, and patches
2.2 with fuzz due to following lines being different.
> Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
> Gregg

View raw message