Bug report for APR [2009/07/12]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47519] APR segfaults in apr_pollset_add()

Hi Rüdiger, On 13.07.2009 18:03, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47519 Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org changed: What|Removed |Added

apr 1.3.6 incorrectly includes -g -O2 in 'pkg-config --cflags

Hi all, apr version 1.3.6 incorrectly includes -g -O2 in the output of 'pkg-config --cflags apr-1': -DLINUX=2 -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -g -O2 -pthread -I/org/centers/pecos/LIBRARIES/APR/apr-1.3.6-intel-10.1.017/include/apr-1 A pkg-config package shouldn't be mucking with optimization

Re: apr-1.3.6 on linux kernel 2.6.26

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 13:54 -0400, Chetan Reddy wrote: configure.in in apr-1.3.6 checks for epoll_create1 using AC_CHECK_FUNCS . Instead, should it have a check similar to the check for epoll_create? i can create a patch if someone can confirm that this is indeed the problem. I've seen you

Re: apr 1.3.6 incorrectly includes -g -O2 in 'pkg-config --cflags

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote: These entries appear in pkg-config output because @EXTRA_CPPFLAGS@ and @EXTRA_CFLAGS@ are present in apr.pc.in. How did you configure apr? I have this in my config.nice: -- CFLAGS=-g -O0 -Wall -fstack-protector; export

Re: apr 1.3.6 incorrectly includes -g -O2 in 'pkg-config --cflags

How did you configure apr? My config.nice for a build using Intel compilers contains --8--- #! /bin/sh # # Created by configure CC=icc; export CC ./configure \ --prefix=/org/centers/pecos/LIBRARIES/APR/apr-1.3.6-intel-10.1.017 \ CC=icc \ CXX=icpc \ CXXFLAGS=-DMPICH_IGNORE_CXX_SEEK \ F77=ifort \

Re: apr 1.3.6 incorrectly includes -g -O2 in 'pkg-config --cflags

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 19:30 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote: What happens for you when you don't set CFLAGS prior to running ./configure? Hmm, what do you know: - -DLINUX=2 -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -g -O2 -pthread

0.9 util puzzle

Why are all my APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_HEAD(b, eos); and similar statements now causing; ftp_request.c:76: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules ftp_request.c:76: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules ftp_request.c:76:

Re: 0.9 util puzzle

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 20:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Why are all my APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_HEAD(b, eos); and similar statements now causing; ftp_request.c:76: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules ftp_request.c:76: warning: dereferencing

Re: 0.9 util puzzle

Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 20:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Why are all my APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_HEAD(b, eos); and similar statements I don't think we ever addressed that in apr_ring.h of APR 0.9. Part of the diff between 1.3 and 0.0 below: No improvement :( And still

Re: 0.9 util puzzle

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 20:50 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: ../../apr-0.9/strings/apr_snprintf.c: In function ‘conv_os_thread_t’: ../../apr-0.9/strings/apr_snprintf.c:511: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules Must be a different issue then. -- Bojan

Re: 0.9 util puzzle

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 20:50 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: No improvement :( And still have; So, just to be clear, when you apply r662299 to 0.9.x, no warnings go away, right? -- Bojan

Re: 0.9 util puzzle

Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 20:50 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: No improvement :( And still have; So, just to be clear, when you apply r662299 to 0.9.x, no warnings go away, right? I have only one warning in building apr, the one I just quote r.e. strings. But when