Hi,
I am trying to find out the code-coverage for httpd using the
perl-testframework.
I am trying to use Rational's PureCoverage tool to do that.
One of the requirements for Purecoverage tool is to insert purecov
before CC(cc or gcc) in makefile.
Does anyone have idea, how to insert purecov
On May 8, 2004, at 5:01 AM, Abhishek Khandelwal wrote:
Does anyone have idea, how to insert purecov before cc in makefile?
What I've always done for httpd 1.3 is simply take the compile line and
do
purecov gcc flags -o httpd `cat all.dot.c's`
after a compile (needed to make sure all
Abhishek Khandelwal wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to find out the code-coverage for httpd using the
perl-testframework.
I am trying to use Rational's PureCoverage tool to do that.
One of the requirements for Purecoverage tool is to insert purecov
before CC(cc or gcc) in makefile.
Does anyone have idea,
I am compiling apache 2.0.49 for solaris 9, and want to statically link in the gdbm libs so that I do not have to rely on the customer to provide them. I have tried every possible combination of flags to pass into the configure script and nothing is working.
is this possible?
Thank you.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
our latest and greatest in every contorted way imaginable.
But we're holding out on them.
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
I ran the perl-framework against the tarball on three platforms:
On Darwin MonaLisa 7.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.3.0: Fri Mar 5
14:22:55 PST 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.3.15.obj~4/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
On May 8, 2004, at 4:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't consider us a closely held ivory-tower QA and I would
say that if anyone knows of a talented pool of users would would
like to test RCs, then we should have a mechanism to use them.
That was the intent for the current/stable-testers list,
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I still don't see
why any stage in the release process should be closed, though.
We don't make any guarantees about any of our code at any time,
Well, yes, you're right, we don't make any guarantees, but
certainly our intent and desire is that we produce the best
Hi,
2.1-dev/docs/conf/ssl-std.conf.in contains:
# Semaphore:
# Configure the path to the mutual exclusion semaphore the
# SSL engine uses internally for inter-process synchronization.
SSLMutex file:@exp_runtimedir@/ssl_mutex
while mod_ssl says:
SSLMutex - Valid SSLMutex mechanisms are:
10 matches
Mail list logo
