Any time you have two different builds, things will go wrong. In theory, you either build loadable modules or not. If not, one would think we would disrepect APR_ICONV_PATH. Seems not to be the case.
I'm unhappy with the number of parallel build flavors in apr util/iconv, and will look at this issue. Can you give me the build options for the two conflicting flavors? Bill At 12:37 PM 3/11/2005, Curt Arnold wrote: >I'm just getting started using the apr_xlate functions in apr-util. >When starting to test on Windows I immediately get an access violation and >noticed that I was loading _tbl_simple.so from Subversion. It appears that >Subversion's install set APR_ICONV_PATH resulting in my inadvertent loading of >their apr_iconv libraries which caused an access violation at line 187 at >iconv_module.c. > >As far as I can tell, the module loading is trying to directly access a data >structure in a dynamically loaded DLL. Possibly the layout of the structure >difference between the compiler and settings used by Subversion and those I >was using was causing the access violation. >When I cleared APR_ICONV_PATH, I got my expected result (which was a failure >to find the library). > >Should Subversion be setting APR_ICONV_PATH? Are so's from different >compilers expected to have the same layout? >
