I love talking to myself, I guess... really wish we could agree to use the same friggin reply-to mechanism for apr and new-httpd, agreeing to disagree isn't a solution when we disagree with ourself. Here's a belated elaboration from this morning...
----- Original Message ----- From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:49 PM Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/unix sendrecv.c sockets.c > From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 11:08 AM > > > > > > has anyone else been using apr/test/makefile.win? With success? > > > > > > > > I'd just like to point out an opportunity for any win hackers, feel > > > > free to > > > > attack the test sources and apr-ize the unix-specific stuff. They each > > > > tend > > > > to focus on a specific API, leaving a ton of non-compileable or > > > > non-functional > > > > calls for win32 and other arcane OS's. > > Just to make myself clear ... I was asking if anyone actually _builds_ the > test > suite on Win32 using makefile.win. It was a quick hack, has fallen out of > sync a > few times, but is essentially useful. > > The problems it identifies in implode/explode time, and the DSO anomilies > I'll take > a look at. I'll be adding the filepath suite to testfile. But I'll let some > other > taker attack the sockets and process stuff. Basically, several tests _live_ > on the > fork(), and that just isn't a way to go on Win32. Couple of hours to get > them all > working on win32 if someone wanted to attack. I have a few other windmills > I'm > tilting at before AC :-) > > Bill > > > >
