On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:23:52 +0100 Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: > > Failed Tests Total Fail Failed % > > =================================================== > > testdso 9 8 88.89% > > testprocmutex 6 3 50.00% > > testsock 16 2 12.50%
> This is quite a lot to digest. Would it be fair to > assume that anything outside those failed tests is > unlikely to be an actual regression from 1.5.x? We're currently blocking on these. It would be good to unblock! I'm mostly concerned right now about whether any of those failures indicates a regression. I've worked through a diff against 1.5.2 (r1676021) and looked for changes to any of those modules that might conceivably be the cause of a regression. Here's what I find: 1. TESTDSO No changes whatsoever in code related to DSO 2. TESTSOCK: r1733452, r1733595. network_io/unix/sockopt.c: include/apr_network_io.h test/testsock.c Adds a case APR_SO_FREEBIND. This looks unlikely to be a regression candidate Is the new FREEBIND test one of the failures? Any clue about the other? 3. TESTPROCMUTEX locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/global_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_cond.c include/apr_proc_mutex.h include/arch/unix/apr_arch_proc_mutex.h Extensive changes with (some) consequences already discussed. Any errors due to timedlock should be discounted: we'll add a release note about "don't use unless prepared to work on it". Are there any errors without timedlocks? BTW, we could use reports from Windows, Netware and Beos on what works for you. -- Nick Kew
