you are right. `assert(((unsigned)socket) <
(_ACTUAL_SOCKET_POOL_SIZE));` should be the right one... with `0 <=
socket` as you gave it only 0 and negative socket ids would be allowed
which is definetly allowed ;-). I provided a PR to fix that . If
you spot any more errors don't be afraid to provide your own PR to fix
2017-03-20 4:04 GMT+01:00 Sam Kumar <samkuma...@gmail.com>:
> I finally got around to porting my implementation to use sock instead of
> conn. I am running into a similar issue now. It seems this check is still in
> sock (see
> I think that the check should be:
> assert(0 <= socket && socket < _ACTUAL_SOCKET_POOL_SIZE);
> but perhaps there is some reasoning behind the original check that I am not
> aware of. Could someone more familiar with the sock code please take a look?
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Martine Lenders <m...@martine-lenders.eu>
>> Hi Sam,
>> 2017-01-12 14:06 GMT+01:00 Sam Kumar <samkuma...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Martine,
>>> I will work on testing it with sock and PR #6004, but it may take some
>>> time since I might need to port the interface from conn to sock.
>>> It seems to me that conn is deprecated and that sock is its replacement
>>> moving forward. Am I correct?
>> That is correct, conn was deprecated with our 2016.10 release and its
>> deprecation was widely advertised within the community before its
>>> And what is the motivation for moving away from conn?
>> As you might have noticed conn is both quite ugly to use and to implement.
>> sock aimed to simplify a lot of these usage issues we had in conn. And also
>> fix quite a few bugs conn had in the backend in most implementations.
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list
devel mailing list