Thanks for you reply Graham, Indeed apt-util warnings not relevant here.
You said below : ... more Windows testing over at APR ..... For HTTPD enough ? We test HTTPD and APR quite intensive with a few members, even on production level on different configurations. The code is quite good, so we find not that much. I hope you have also concerns about Windows warnings. There is a reason that ms gives code a warning, a sign that code can be better. We had some Windows coders in the community, sadly they left. I shall look around again. Ps. We test also Trunk, issues found I let it know (like in May) and post warnings here. After some commits we test. It is not automated like Travis. > Op 30 jul. 2020 om 11:56 heeft Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> het volgende > geschreven: > > On 30 Jul 2020, at 11:16, Steffen Land <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: > >> +1 on Windows. >> >> I am in doubt for a -0 : >> >> Still quite some (more) warnings, now 432, attached Win64 warnings with the >> ones from APR-UTIL. >> >> I think a goal is (must be) that we get warning free on all platforms, now >> it looks bad on Windows. >> >> I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann. > > Apr-util is a library from the APR project, not httpd, and so warnings from > APR wouldn’t be relevant for an httpd release, or for the httpd project. > > That said there is definite need for more Windows testing over at APR, if you > or members of the Apachelounge community are in the position to contribute > patches this will be very much appreciated. > > Regards, > Graham > — >
