I'm still all for this, But do many people use a 64-bit variant of httpd it self? I've long since switched to linux for both my server and my development environment but still provide binaries I compile on my website. (If I'm lazy I get about 2-3 mails per day asking for the newest release)
So here are some statistics from blackdot.be: httpd/httpd-2.2.18-win64.rar 101 (went up yesterday) httpd/httpd-2.2.17-win64.rar 16212 httpd/httpd-2.2.15-win64.rar 15750 httpd/httpd-2.2.14-win64.rar 10403 httpd/httpd-2.2.13-win64.rar 3110 httpd/httpd-2.2.12-win64.zip 801 httpd/httpd-2.2.11-win64.zip 14347 httpd/httpd-2.2.10-win64.zip 1521 httpd/httpd-2.2.9-win64.zip 2666 httpd/httpd-2.2.8-win64.zip 2181 httpd/httpd-2.2.4_x64.exe 4859 I wonder about the overall usage, more people seem to be compiling them themselves recently and some other websites probably offer them. Do the argument from a few year back still hold for the ASF not providing them themselves still hold true for 2.3/2.4? IIRC it had to due with VC6 being used for 3rd party module compatibility. With the release of 2.4 series around the corner maybe now is a good time to discuss this again? Kind regards ~Jorge On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Gregg L. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > This was originally asked for by Jorge of blackdot.be back in July of 2006. > http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=115394468128469&w=2 > > With the simple fact that every Windows computer I have seen being sold for > some time now being x64, I do not see any reason to hold back on this since > there is no functional change. > > His patch looks like it would give out a redefinition warning, so here's my > version. I'm using WIN64 where he uses _WIN64, the reason is both are being > used, the former is used in numerous files throughout httpd & APR, the latter > in mpm/winnt/child.c. My x64 conversion script defines WIN64 and the compiler > _WIN64 so for me both are covered. Feel free to use whichever you prefer. > > It would be nice to see this in both trunk & 2.2. Patch is against trunk, and > patches 2.2 with fuzz due to following lines being different. > > Thanks for your consideration in this matter. > > Gregg > > > > >
