[OT] lower the bar - was [PROPOSAL] Move APR to the subversion repository

[Guenter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>]

Hi,
> I'm against immediate adoption of SVN for purely community-based
> reasons, but not for technical reasons. I believe that switching to SVN
> will raise the bar to entry for new contributors, and I think we
> should do whatever we can do to try and lower this bar. Unfortunately
one other point I would like to to get around is that it seems I'm now forced to get MSVC7 if I want to continue to follow the 2.1-dev development on Win32. Since the atomic functions were introduced last November, I'm no longer able to compile 2.1-dev. I've tried to update the platform SDK, but couldnt get around that update either (not a ASF problem, but M$); perhaps someone can point me to an update which cleanly applies to MSVC6 on W2K, and fixes the problem with the atomic functions?
If not, and MSVC7 turns out as mandatory, this will certaily raise the bar at least for Win32...

thanks, Guenter.

Re: [OT] lower the bar - was [PROPOSAL] Move APR to the subversion repository

[Guenter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>]

Hi Jeff,
> Not recommended, but when building on Win32 I always comment out the call
> to InterlockedCompareExchangePointer() and just return NULL ;)
hehe, I wasnt brave enough to do that...!

> For better handling of this dependency, how can we check for 64-bit build
> at
> compile time on Win32?  For a 64-bit build we really need to call
> InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(), but for 32-bit build, calling
> InterlockedCompareExchange() is fine and we can avoid the extra SDK
> dependency.
cool! That would be very great if we could find a way around this; even a simple -DBUILD32 would be suffient!

thanks, Guenter.

Re: [OT] lower the bar - was [PROPOSAL] Move APR to the subversion repository

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>]

Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>I'm against immediate adoption of SVN for purely community-based
>>reasons, but not for technical reasons. I believe that switching to SVN
>>will raise the bar to entry for new contributors, and I think we
>>should do whatever we can do to try and lower this bar. Unfortunately
> 
> one other point I would like to to get around is that it seems I'm 
 >now forced to get MSVC7 if I want to continue to follow the 2.1-dev
 >development on Win32. Since the atomic functions were introduced
 >last November, I'm no longer able to compile 2.1-dev. I've tried
 >to update the platform SDK, but couldnt get around that update
 >either (not a ASF problem, but M$); perhaps someone can point me
 > to an update which cleanly applies to MSVC6 on W2K, and fixes the
 >problem with the atomic functions?
> If not, and MSVC7 turns out as mandatory, this will certaily raise 
 >the bar at least for Win32...

Not recommended, but when building on Win32 I always comment out the call to 
InterlockedCompareExchangePointer() and just return NULL ;)

For better handling of this dependency, how can we check for 64-bit build at 
compile time on Win32?  For a 64-bit build we really need to call 
InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(), but for 32-bit build, calling 
InterlockedCompareExchange() is fine and we can avoid the extra SDK dependency.