On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:24 -0500, "Dan Poirier"
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:34 -0600, "Hyrum K. Wright"
> wrote:
> > When building an unmodified checkout of the 1.4.x branch, I get the
> > following:
> >
> > $ ./buildconf
> > ...
> > $ ./configure
> > ...
> > $ make
> > $ make
> > /bin/sh /li
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:34 -0600, "Hyrum K. Wright"
wrote:
> When building an unmodified checkout of the 1.4.x branch, I get the
> following:
>
> $ ./buildconf
> ...
> $ ./configure
> ...
> $ make
> $ make
> /bin/sh /libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -g -O2 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
> -DDARWIN -DSIGPROC
I realize folks are trying to get 1.4.2 out the door, so I'm sorry for the late
arrival of my various bugs.
When building an unmodified checkout of the 1.4.x branch, I get the following:
$ ./buildconf
...
$ ./configure
...
$ make
$ make
/bin/sh /libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -g -O2 -DHAV
On 11 Mar 2010, at 7:08 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
I'm finding the results autoconf comes up with on Mac OS X 10.6
confusing. E.g.:
#define SIZEOF_OFF_T 8
and sizeof(APR_INT64_T) is 8 by definition
but
#define APR_INT64_T_FMT "ld"
#define APR_OFF_T_FMT "lld"
so if INT64_T and OFF_T are the
On Mar 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Dan Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:50 -0600, "William A. Rowe Jr."
> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> Digging deeper, it appears to be an error in apr_vformatter() when parsing
>>> the format '%lld'. I'm running the tests on
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:50 -0600, "William A. Rowe Jr."
wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >
> > Digging deeper, it appears to be an error in apr_vformatter() when parsing
> > the format '%lld'. I'm running the tests on Mac OS X where APR_OFF_FMT_T
> > is defined as lld, so
On Mar 10, 2010, at 5:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>
>> Digging deeper, it appears to be an error in apr_vformatter() when parsing
>> the format '%lld'. I'm running the tests on Mac OS X where APR_OFF_FMT_T is
>> defined as lld, so this for
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:36 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> That's a good solution.
>
> Just an observation, we should probably duplicate for a day while mirrors
> pick up the 1.x and then remove the old 1.3/1.4 files.
>
> And did we want to menti