Garrett Rooney wrote:
I'm not positive, not being an especially fluent win32 developer, but I think this seems reasonable... Would this patch be a replacement for the backport you previously identified as avoiding the problem, or is it in addition to it? -garrett
Ah, no this patch is an addition to that backport, and I now realize that this patch ought to be nominated for backport if the intended behavior is to mimmick the *nix behavior of apr_stat(,,APR_FINFO_PROT,)
/Andreas
