Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> modperl-2.0 'make test' running under worker mpm (linux) always fails in
> t/filter/both_str_req_add.t and dumps core:
Why does that test fail all by itself, using this patch?
Index: t/filter/TestFilter/both_str_req_add.pm
===
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Joe, there is a test where setaside is needed for real. It's:
>
> t/filter/TestFilter/in_bbs_inject_header.pm: # it can be stashed
> away (missing $b->setaside wrapper):
>
> # XXX: this is broken: the bucket must be set-as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
joes2004/10/03 19:29:26
Modified:.Changes
Log:
Reimplement APR::Bucket using apr_bucket_alloc_t -
* $bucket_alloc argument added to APR::Bucket::new
* new subs:
APR::Bucket::setaside
Joe, there is a test where setaside is need
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
joes2004/10/03 19:16:43
Index: in_out_filters.t
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/modperl-2.0/t/api/in_out_filters.t,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- in_out_
Stas Bekman wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Stas Bekman wrote:
modperl-2.0 'make test' running under worker mpm (linux) always fails in
t/filter/both_str_req_add.t and dumps core:
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
#1 0xbfffeff8 in ?? ()
#2 0x0001 in ??
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Stas Bekman wrote:
modperl-2.0 'make test' running under worker mpm (linux) always fails in
t/filter/both_str_req_add.t and dumps core:
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
#1 0xbfffeff8 in ?? ()
#2 0x0001 in ?? ()
#3 0xbfffeff7 i
modperl-2.0 'make test' running under worker mpm (linux) always fails in
t/filter/both_str_req_add.t and dumps core:
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0xe410 in ?? ()
#1 0xbfffeff8 in ?? ()
#2 0x0001 in ?? ()
#3 0xbfffeff7 in ?? ()
#4 0x4030536b in __read_nocancel () from /lib/tls/
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- why upcased SV, P?
Because a lowercase "sv" appears in the macro as
an attribute of acct. Using a lowercase "sv" in the macro argument
will confuse the preprocessor.
so will choosing a different variable name work?
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >>- why upcased SV, P?
> > Because a lowercase "sv" appears in the macro as
> > an attribute of acct. Using a lowercase "sv" in the macro argument
> > will confuse the preprocessor.
>
> so will choosing a different variable name
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- why upcased SV, P?
Because a lowercase "sv" appears in the macro as
an attribute of acct. Using a lowercase "sv" in
the macro argument will confuse the preprocessor.
so will choosing a different variable name work? At least that's the
practice we have been using so far. Or
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Looking at the most recent post on the topic from Sep 30th, you were
still discussing some nuances, like MP_APR_POOL_SV_DROPS_OWNERSHIP,
and I was expecting to see the final patch, before reviewing it.
Err, ok- personally I though
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Looking at the most recent post on the topic from Sep 30th, you were
> still discussing some nuances, like MP_APR_POOL_SV_DROPS_OWNERSHIP,
> and I was expecting to see the final patch, before reviewing it.
Err, ok- personally I thought the discuss
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I can't test against Apache 2.0.47 and 2.0.48 since both segfault for
me on start.
Does the backtrace look similar to the one Joe Orton posted
http://www.apache.org/~jorton/startup.perl
No, no, it segfaults in register_hooks even when
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't test against Apache 2.0.47 and 2.0.48 since both segfault for
> me on start.
Does the backtrace look similar to the one Joe Orton posted
http://www.apache.org/~jorton/startup.perl
? If so, my APR__Pool.h patch will fix this. I'd like to
comm
14 matches
Mail list logo
