Couple issues tunneling into my AIX/HPUX boxes. ppc64 RHEL 5 linux looks good, at least, passes all tests, sysv sem timed locks discovered. Hopefully able to test in the next day or few.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > With patches now accounted for I can pre-test and report back today on AIX, > HPUX and propose a fix to silence the win32 32 -> 16 bit warnings (after > division is done.) > > But my inclination is to defer this new feature to a later 1.7+2.0 release. > Shipping a feature that devs would expect to need when it may be largely > unavailable seems a disservice to our end users and these devs. > > > > On Apr 19, 2017 10:45, "Nick Kew" <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:16:37 +0200 >> Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Unfortunately I was not (yet) able to find out, whether there's a >> > > patch for Bug 6738798 available on Solaris 10, or whether we would >> > > break Solaris 10. >> > >> > Maybe we need to "#define APR_USE_PROC_PTHREAD_MUTEX_COND 0" for >> > Solaris 10, and fall back to the generic implementation (spinning >> > sleep)... >> >> I've just (r1791932) made timedlocks a config option on unix-family. >> Defaults to on, but any users getting bitten by it can now use >> --disable-timedlocks and the timedlock function return APR_ENOTIMPL >> (as per earlier discussion, after being bitten by Mac but before >> Solaris versions joined the awkward squad). >> >> Given that two mainstream platforms have bitten us on this in the >> pre-release cycle, it would seem very high risk now to release >> without such a workaround. We can request that anyone who finds >> themselves having to use it report back to us! >> >> -- >> Nick Kew
