"MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" wrote: > > I noticed that there were some places where u_int32_t is being used instead > of apr_uint32_t. Is it purposefully done OR is it one of those "Oh, the apr > interface changed" stuff ?. > > Anyways, I've included a patch that atleast gets the module to compile > against 2.0.43. Pl. let me know if it's okay.
It works fine on Linux. Committed, thanks! Greg
