https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #20 from Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ruediger Pluem from comment #19) > Any feedback on the proposed approach? If the concept looks fine I would > create a merged patch for testing. I share the same analysis, DNS resolution races with constructors hence pool corruption and further crash. Regarding the volatile(s) added to structs, I think the compatibility issue can be addressed by using volatile accesses instead of volatile declaration, i.e. define something like: #define AP_VOLATILIZE_T(T, x) (*(T volatile *)&(x)) and use it wherever we access worker->local_status or worker->cp->addr (which then need to be declared volatile). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
