Our company would have run into the problem, though I knew it beforehand and avoided the problem on affected servers by switching back to prefork. We have setup our servers to build all shared mpms anyways, so this wasn’t a big problem.
All the affected systems were in fact 32bit SLES (10 and 11). Is your workaround started in trunk complete? I would like to test if the problem is solved by the workaround on affected systems. On 16 Dec 2013, at 16:25, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that 2.4.7 has been out for awhile, I would have assumed > that if people were hitting the "atomics not working as > expected" error (using unsigned as signed), we would have > started hearing about it... But, afaik, we haven't. > > So this leads me to the following discussion: should we stay > with the "workaround" started in > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1545286 > > where we use an zero-point offset, or go back to the old method, > or do something else?
