On TPF, "HAVE_ISNAN" is erroneously being defined (due to cross-platform
compiler issues unique to TPF).
So if the isnan patch stays in 1.3.20, TPF needs the following patch to be
applied to src/os/tpf/os.h:
*** current/apache/src/os/tpf/os.h Fri May 11 19:19:57 2001
--- new/apache/src/os/tpf/os.h Fri May 11 19:19:24 2001
***************
*** 18,23 ****
--- 18,27 ----
#include "ap_config.h"
+ #ifdef HAVE_ISNAN
+ #undef HAVE_ISNAN
+ #endif
+
#if !defined(INLINE) && defined(USE_GNU_INLINE)
/* Compiler supports inline, so include the inlineable functions as
* part of the header
-David McCreedy
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/11/2001 03:00:02 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Proposed Code Freeze for 1.3.20
Hmmm? isnan/isfnf, while problematic, is a very appropriate patch since
it closes an opportunity for segfaults (even if they are caused by a third
party module, and not our code.)
I'd tend to agree on the ab patch, but it's here.
I'm preparing an alternate solution till those changes are all cleaned up.
An announce will follow.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Code Freeze for 1.3.20
> If at any time progress is stopped because someone committed a bad
> patch to the tree, the best way to fix it is to revert the patch
> (unless for some reason that patch is necessary for the release).
> I'd say you can revert all of the changes for isnan and ab if you
> are in a hurry to get this release out.
>
> People just shouldn't be committing stuff like that to 1.3.x.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
