Re: Notice of Intent: TR 1.3.34
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:48 PM, Glenn Strauss wrote: May I humbly request inclusion of a patch I wrote almost a year ago? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31858 |31858|New|Maj|2004-10-22|regular expression matching broken on amd64 It is not a feature request; it fixes a crashing bug on AMD64. This has been discussed, has been validated, and is included in Gentoo (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70177) and probably other distributions. I have applied the patch to trunk. I would encourage all to update their copies and cd into src/regex and 'make r' to run regression tests on the patched tree. I have confirmed no regressions on the systems I have access to (Sol8, OS X/Darwin) and will be looking at Suse 9.2 soonish.
Re: Notice of Intent: TR 1.3.34
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: I will be TR'ing 1.3.34 On Tues or Weds May I humbly request inclusion of a patch I wrote almost a year ago? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31858 |31858|New|Maj|2004-10-22|regular expression matching broken on amd64 It is not a feature request; it fixes a crashing bug on AMD64. This has been discussed, has been validated, and is included in Gentoo (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70177) and probably other distributions. BTW, if the ASF is looking for help better maintaining the 1.3 tree, I am sure that there are a few people on this list, myself included, who would volunteer. Cheers, Glenn
Re: Notice of Intent: TR 1.3.34
Glenn Strauss wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: I will be TR'ing 1.3.34 On Tues or Weds May I humbly request inclusion of a patch I wrote almost a year ago? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31858 |31858|New|Maj|2004-10-22|regular expression matching broken on amd64 It is not a feature request; it fixes a crashing bug on AMD64. This has been discussed, has been validated, and is included in Gentoo (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70177) and probably other distributions. +1 BTW, if the ASF is looking for help better maintaining the 1.3 tree, I am sure that there are a few people on this list, myself included, who would volunteer. Help is always welcome, but as we approach 2.2 (meaning 2.0-final), we draw closer and closer to EOL for Apache 1.3 support. Sure, it will probably be still supported for security holes (considering all the very interesting oddball architectures that aren't supported by our libtool friends) - but will it be any more frequent than 1x to 2x a year? Not likely :) Bill
RE: Notice of Intent: TR 1.3.34
And frankly it's about damn time. There are a variety of corporate product deployments still using various bastardized versions of the apache 1.3 tree. It's disgusting the number of security holes that these often latent-version derivatives induce without any kind of secondary access controls implemented by default. Further, hopefully the true EOL will force some of our development colleagues *cough* to focus more attention onto optimizing module integrations for efficient usage of the 2.0 and beyond infrastructure. While I am at it... is much being looked at for optimization under GCC 4.1 in future releases? Thinking specifically in terms of optimizing algorithmic methods / looping for vectorized execution given the industry's move towards multi-path programming and execution models. At present we have moved from SMP to environments where we are looking at dual-core and even now (with some of the server platforms being developed using the cell processor) true vectorized execution. -- Wayne S. Frazee Ita erat quando hic adventi. -- Help is always welcome, but as we approach 2.2 (meaning 2.0-final), we draw closer and closer to EOL for Apache 1.3 support. Sure, it will probably be still supported for security holes (considering all the very interesting oddball architectures that aren't supported by our libtool friends) - but will it be any more frequent than 1x to 2x a year? Not likely :) Bill
