On 13.08.2012 21:02, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 13.08.2012 19:40, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
Hi,
PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment
On 13.08.2012 19:40, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
Hi,
PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of
the three structs mapped
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of
>>> the three structs mapped into shm contains
On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Hi,
PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of
the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member, which at
least on Sparc is 8 Bytes, whereas for 32 bit bu
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of
> the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member, which at
> least on Sparc is 8 Bytes, whereas for 32 bit builds long is only 4 Bytes.
>
> Curr
Hi,
PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One
of the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member,
which at least on Sparc is 8 Bytes, whereas for 32 bit builds long is
only 4 Bytes.
Currently everything is aligned for 4 Bytes, so we get bus
error
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:27:08AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Does that explanation work for you?
Yes, perfectly, thanks for taking the time. I stupidly forgot about the
timeout calls... sorry!
Regards, Joe
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Apache Lounge wrote:
> Also here it is running now without issues till now here with
> AcceptFilter-none+SSL
awesome/thanks!
>
> Steffen
>
> -Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:43 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:]
> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 15:35
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for
> Windows bug#52476)
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> wrote:
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows
>> bug#5
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows
> bug#52476)
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > We
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with
>> r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently.
>> I wonder if that call is stray and
Also here it is running now without issues till now here with
AcceptFilter-none+SSL
Steffen
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Trawick
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:43 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476
This patch is te
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with
> r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently.
> I wonder if that call is stray and it doesn't get along with the
> timeout handling on Wind
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@webthing.com]
> Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 13:11
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1372054 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
> server/util.c
>
>
> On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:15, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> > ap_strcmp_m
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:15, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> ap_strcmp_match seems to be a lot of overhead for just prefix matching a
> string.
> How about
>
> strncmp("application/x-www-form-urlencoded", ct, 33)
Either way, shouldn't it be a case-insensitive match?
--
Nick Kew
On 08/12/2012 03:15 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> humbed...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: humbedooh
>> Date: Sun Aug 12 07:45:55 2012
>> New Revision: 1372054
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1372054&view=rev
>> Log:
>> core:
>> Be less strict when checking whether Content-Type is set
17 matches
Mail list logo
