"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 mo
> 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
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.