Will look right after lunch, but *please* feel free to edit,
enhance, fix as needed… That's why I committed it so we can
all work on it…
Cheers!
On Aug 26, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> I think the
>
> + if (in_merge) {
> + overlaps++;
> + continue;
> + } else {
> + new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
> + *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%"
> APR_OFF_T_FMT,
> + ostart, oend);
> + idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
> + idx->start = ostart;
> + idx->end = oend;
> num_ranges++;
> - range++;
> + }
>
> should be really
>
> + if (in_merge) {
> + overlaps++;
> + continue;
> + } else {
> + new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
> + *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%"
> APR_OFF_T_FMT,
> + ostart, oend);
> + idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
> + idx->start = ostart;
> + idx->end = oend;
>
> + ostart = start;
> + oend = end;
> + in_merge = 1;
>
> num_ranges++;
> - range++;
> + }
>
> Otherwise I think 0-1,1000-1001
> will result in
>
> 0-1
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 17:19
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: PoC ready
>>
>> Committed... r 1162131
>>
>
