httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dreamice <dreamice.ji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Date Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:24:53 GMT
Is there anyone has tested the 2.2.19 with this patch?

2011/9/1 "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com>

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 1. September 2011 03:51
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
> >
> > On 8/31/2011 4:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > > I've attempted to simply substitute the 2.2.19 filter code into the
> > > 2.0.64 http_protocol.c sources, and am unsure how far off
> > these patches
> > > are from what they need to be; there's been a significant
> > amount of drift
> > > and refactoring in the interim.
> >
> > Still looking for feedback, but the attached applies and
> > corresponds to
> > 2.2.20 with the exception of atoi rather than strtoi
> > semantics, and without
> > the no DefaultType exception..
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for taking care. It applies cleanly, but most byterange tests
> from the framework fail:
>
> Failed Test           Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> t/apache/byterange.t               136   97  71.32%  2-9 11 16-17 19-20
> 25-26
>                                                     28 33-35 37-39 42 44-47
>                                                     49-61 63-68 70-73 77-79
>                                                     83-88 90-96 98-99
> 101-103
>                                                     105-113 115-123 126-127
>                                                     130 132-136
> t/apache/byterange5.t                5    4  80.00%  1 3-5
> t/apache/byterange7.t               13    5  38.46%  2-5 12
>
> This might be because I use a 64 bit build of 2.0.x (no other test
> environment at hand
> at the moment) and 2.0.x is not really good at 64 bit (lots of compiler
> warnings).
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>

Mime
View raw message