Yes, it is complete. On Dec 31, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Falco Schwarz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Our company would have run into the problem, though I knew it beforehand and > avoided the problem on affected servers by switching back to prefork. We have > setup our servers to build all shared mpms anyways, so this wasn’t a big > problem. > > All the affected systems were in fact 32bit SLES (10 and 11). Is your > workaround started in trunk complete? I would like to test if the problem is > solved by the workaround on affected systems. > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 16:25, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Now that 2.4.7 has been out for awhile, I would have assumed >> that if people were hitting the "atomics not working as >> expected" error (using unsigned as signed), we would have >> started hearing about it... But, afaik, we haven't. >> >> So this leads me to the following discussion: should we stay >> with the "workaround" started in >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1545286 >> >> where we use an zero-point offset, or go back to the old method, >> or do something else? >
