You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> on 2015/04/23 00:19:27 UTC
Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
(subject says it all)
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (subject says it all)
+1
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.
On 4/23/2015 5:36 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 06:28 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> On 4/22/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> (subject says it all)
>> Did we ever decide the best way to handle apr_atomic.c on VC 2013+?
>> PR 57191.
>>
>> As often as APR is released, it would be nice to get something done
>> this time around, even if it's not the perfect solution. It has to
>> better than leaving as-is and I'm not sure there really is a perfect
>> solution.
>>
> +1 for your patch in the bug report
>
Ok, I'll commit this evening.
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/22/2015 06:28 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 4/22/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> (subject says it all)
> Did we ever decide the best way to handle apr_atomic.c on VC 2013+?
> PR 57191.
>
> As often as APR is released, it would be nice to get something done
> this time around, even if it's not the perfect solution. It has to
> better than leaving as-is and I'm not sure there really is a perfect
> solution.
>
>
>
+1 for your patch in the bug report
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/22/2015 06:28 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 4/22/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> (subject says it all)
> Did we ever decide the best way to handle apr_atomic.c on VC 2013+?
> PR 57191.
>
> As often as APR is released, it would be nice to get something done
> this time around, even if it's not the perfect solution. It has to
> better than leaving as-is and I'm not sure there really is a perfect
> solution.
>
>
>
Thanks for reminding me. I'll try to get back to this tomorrow a.m.
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.
On 4/22/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> (subject says it all)
Did we ever decide the best way to handle apr_atomic.c on VC 2013+?
PR 57191.
As often as APR is released, it would be nice to get something done this
time around, even if it's not the perfect solution. It has to better
than leaving as-is and I'm not sure there really is a perfect solution.
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 12:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> Commited in r1675670 (for 1.5.x).
>
> works fine on S10 circa 2008; I removed my --enable-non-portable-atomics
> flag (which would bypass the test) and verified that it still uses them
>
> needs CHANGES ;)
Done in r1675694.
Thanks for testing!
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/23/2015 12:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/23/2015 09:33 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> Should we add https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32643
>>> from PR 55418?
>>
>> looks reasonable to me (not tested)
> I had tested it with:
> + case $host in
> + *solaris2.10*|*linux*)
> and it worked as expected :P
>
> Commited in r1675670 (for 1.5.x).
works fine on S10 circa 2008; I removed my --enable-non-portable-atomics
flag (which would bypass the test) and verified that it still uses them
needs CHANGES ;)
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/23/2015 09:33 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> Should we add https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32643
>> from PR 55418?
>
>
> looks reasonable to me (not tested)
I had tested it with:
+ case $host in
+ *solaris2.10*|*linux*)
and it worked as expected :P
Commited in r1675670 (for 1.5.x).
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/23/2015 11:54 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> warnings in test suite with Sun compiler on Solaris 10, some of which is
>> from relatively new code (not researched, maybe the API is defined in a way
>> that this compiler will never be happy):
>>
>> "testatomic.c", line 208: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
>> range: -1
>> "testatomic.c", line 221: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
>> range: -1
>> "testatomic.c", line 222: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
>> range: -1
> Is it fixed by r1675662?
fixed :)
>> "testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
>> prototype:
>> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
>> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
>> argument : pointer to void
>> "testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
>> prototype:
>> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
>> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
>> argument : pointer to void
>> "testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
>> prototype:
>> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
>> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
>> argument : pointer to void
>> "testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
>> prototype:
>> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
>> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
>> argument : pointer to void
> And this ones by r1675651?
fixed :)
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> warnings in test suite with Sun compiler on Solaris 10, some of which is
> from relatively new code (not researched, maybe the API is defined in a way
> that this compiler will never be happy):
>
> "testatomic.c", line 208: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
> range: -1
> "testatomic.c", line 221: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
> range: -1
> "testatomic.c", line 222: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
> range: -1
Is it fixed by r1675662?
> "testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
> prototype:
> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
> argument : pointer to void
> "testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
> prototype:
> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
> argument : pointer to void
> "testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
> prototype:
> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
> argument : pointer to void
> "testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
> prototype:
> prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
> returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
> argument : pointer to void
And this ones by r1675651?
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/23/2015 09:33 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (subject says it all)
> Should we add https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32643
> from PR 55418?
looks reasonable to me (not tested)
>
> Also https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55418#c4 suggests
> test suite may be broken for solaris (or is it a known issue?).
no failures here with apr-1.5.x HEAD on Solaris 10 U5 (2008 :) ) with
Sun compiler from that era...
--/--
warnings in test suite with Sun compiler on Solaris 10, some of which is
from relatively new code (not researched, maybe the API is defined in a
way that this compiler will never be happy):
"testatomic.c", line 208: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
range: -1
"testatomic.c", line 221: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
range: -1
"testatomic.c", line 222: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
range: -1
"testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
prototype:
prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
argument : pointer to void
"testskiplist.c", line 75: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
prototype:
prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
argument : pointer to void
"testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #2 is incompatible with
prototype:
prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
argument : pointer to void
"testskiplist.c", line 235: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with
prototype:
prototype: pointer to function(pointer to void, pointer to void)
returning int : "../include/apr_skiplist.h", line 111
argument : pointer to void
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (subject says it all)
Should we add https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32643
from PR 55418?
Also https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55418#c4 suggests
test suite may be broken for solaris (or is it a known issue?).
Re: Any concerns with a T&R of apr 1.5.2 on Saturday a.m.?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 04/22/2015 06:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> (subject says it all)
Coming up shortly...