From owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Tue Aug 7 11:59:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f77IxML06901 for apache-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:59:22 -0700 Received: from artemis.rubiconproject.com (tigger73.rubiconproject.com [63.95.167.73] (may be forged)) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f77IxLV06898 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:59:21 -0700 Received: by artemis.rubiconproject.com (Postfix, from userid 1107) id 673871D39; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:00:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15216.15065.341139.785707@artemis.rubiconproject.com> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:00:41 -0700 From: Shamim Mohamed To: apache@oss.sgi.com Subject: 10x patch breaks modules in 1.3.20 X-Mailer: VM 6.89 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk I have a couple of Apache modules that are content handlers, running under Apache 1.3.20 on Solaris 2.8 (sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2). The modules are dynamically loaded. However, installing the 10x patch breaks the modules. This is the sysmptom: in the handler, static int foobar_handler(request_rec *r) { const char* uri; const char* args; ... uri = r->unparsed_uri; args = r->args; ... } I get a NULL pointer for r->unparsed_uri, and an empty string for r->args. The unpatched 1.3.20 works fine. What was it that broke this? I have a suggestion: break up the patch into smaller pieces. In my case, for instance, I'd like to use QUICK_LOG and the stat cache; but I'm not serving any static content, so QSC is of no interest to me. And I'm not on Irix, so Direct I/O is similarly superfluous. There seems to be no reason these can't all be different patches, they seem quite orthogonal. (Some of the things I've tried, in desperation: turning off all the extra features; as well as editing the patch file by hand - very tedious! - to not include the QSC and Direct I/O bits. So far no luck.) -s From owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Sun Aug 12 20:57:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f7D3vos28701 for apache-outgoing; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:57:50 -0700 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (pneumatic-tube.sgi.com [204.94.214.22]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f7D3vmj28698 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:57:48 -0700 Received: from nodin.corp.sgi.com (fddi-nodin.corp.sgi.com [198.29.75.193]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id UAA04602 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:55:48 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (mja@trudge.engr.sgi.com) Received: from yog-sothoth.sgi.com (eugate.sgi.com [144.253.131.5]) by nodin.corp.sgi.com (8.11.4/8.11.2/nodin-1.0) with ESMTP id f7D3ukF35786750 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trudge.engr.sgi.com (trudge.engr.sgi.com [163.154.38.51]) by yog-sothoth.sgi.com (980305.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980304.SGI-aspam-europe) via ESMTP id FAA1028613 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:54:02 +0200 (CEST) mail_from (mja@trudge.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from mja@localhost) by trudge.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id UAA01356; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT) From: mja@trudge.engr.sgi.com (Mike Abbott) Message-Id: <200108130352.UAA01356@trudge.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: 10x patch breaks modules in 1.3.20 To: shamim@spotlife.com (Shamim Mohamed) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: apache@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <15216.15065.341139.785707@artemis.rubiconproject.com> from "Shamim Mohamed" at Aug 07, 2001 12:00:41 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk > However, installing the 10x patch breaks the modules. This is the > sysmptom: in the handler, > [...] > I get a NULL pointer for r->unparsed_uri, and an empty string for > r->args. The unpatched 1.3.20 works fine. What was it that broke this? Something must have changed between 1.3.14 and 1.3.20 in the way these fields are initialized. Since I have no direct experience with 1.3.20 I can't help you. Anyone else? If you have the same problem with 1.3.14 I'll help you. > I have a suggestion: break up the patch into smaller pieces. First of all, the patches were originally split into smaller pieces. The smaller ones went over about as well as the monolithic ones so there was no point in continuing them. Second, even if split the patches depend on one another. More accurately, they all depend on the 64-bit and warning-free changes. This makes them hard to maintain separately from one release to another. The changes are easier to port as a group. Third, all the major pieces are #ifdef'd already. If you don't want a particular enhancement, just undefine its token. Fourth, the project is terminated so it ain't never gonna happen. Sorry. -- Michael J. Abbott mja@sgi.com www.repbot.org/mike From owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Mon Aug 13 10:37:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f7DHbdr14400 for apache-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:39 -0700 Received: from artemis.rubiconproject.com (tigger73.rubiconproject.com [63.95.167.73] (may be forged)) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f7DHbcj14397 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:38 -0700 Received: by artemis.rubiconproject.com (Postfix, from userid 1107) id 033821D39; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15224.4188.898882.733443@artemis.rubiconproject.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:32 -0700 From: Shamim Mohamed To: mja@trudge.engr.sgi.com (Mike Abbott) Cc: apache@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: 10x patch breaks modules in 1.3.20 In-Reply-To: <200108130352.UAA01356@trudge.engr.sgi.com> References: <15216.15065.341139.785707@artemis.rubiconproject.com> <200108130352.UAA01356@trudge.engr.sgi.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.89 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-apache@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk > Something must have changed between 1.3.14 and 1.3.20 in the way > these fields are initialized. Since I have no direct experience > with 1.3.20 I can't help you. Anyone else? If you have the same > problem with 1.3.14 I'll help you. After a lot of exploration with gdb I found that I was compiling the modules against the unpatched 1.3.20 - D'oh! So scratch the problem report; modules seem to work fine with the 10x patches. -s