On 01/08/2008 03:30 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:29:43 +0100 > Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Once the tests are positive I will propose r609394 and r609538 for >> backport such that T&R of 2.2.x and all other branches can start soon. > > It works, but a couple of niggles reviewing those. Taking line > numbers on a diff applying those to 2.2.7 (the configuration I tested): > > Line 80: if (len > 0). > It's better future-proof if len is declared (signed) int, so that test > fails if something happens to screw up computing len.
It is apr_size_t, because this whats apr_brigade_flatten needs. What is your worry? That the computation above can fail and cause the result to be negative? > > Lines 47-55: what about a brigade with no data bucket, or with a > zero-length last data bucket? Good point. I will address this. > > If you've addressed those in the later revisions, then +1 to this > proposal. It passes the real-life practical test. > No they are not. I am sorry. Regards Rüdiger
