Yep you are right I forgot that beta versions are not strictly tested. They are meant to be full of bugs ;). That is nonsense, you cannot hide behind beta. (don't forget that gmail is beta since 2004)
What I tried to tell is, it was very obvious when you look at the code that you have underflow. This test case must have been inside of one of the cases because it is a boundary condition. When you create test cases first you put boundary cases, because they are easy to find. This bug is not an ordinary one. It is important because it is crashing whole application which can cause very important security holes and still it does not befits google. 2008/9/6 Temko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "beta" > > On Sep 5, 4:14 pm, "Yasin Hınıslıoğlu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I wonder the whole product has been tested before release date. ":%" >> must have been inside one of the test cases, it obvious you might have >> underflow when you look at the code. I believe this bug does not >> befits a company like Google. >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Den Molib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Qian Qiao wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Camilo Aguilar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Finnur, does this happen because the URL parsing code in chromium is a >> >>> shared code between browser kernel and rendering engine. Is that right ? >> >> >> I think it's only natural that you parse the URL in the parent >> >> process, i.e. the browser, then spawn the child process to render the >> >> URL. >> >> >> If it wasn't done like that, you'll have to spawn the renderer >> >> process, have it parse the URL and then render it. It's breaks >> >> modularity imo, since the renderer process is doing something it >> >> doesn't have to do, and it introduces a performance overhead (imagine >> >> you mistype your url a couple of times, you'll spawn unnecessary >> >> processes), and as we all know, spawning processes in some OS (windoze >> >> for example) isn't exactly the cheapest thing in the world. >> >> >> -- Joe >> >> > Also see the design document. The connections are made by the parent >> > process, which is the one which takes care of the sessions and the only >> > one knowing which cookies it needs to send. >> > Parsing the url at it is the only logical choice. It's just unfortunate >> > to have that problem precisely applying to the browser. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
