On 17.9.2002 20:23 Uhr, Gilles Detillieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's the part you suspect is failing, then you should be able > to confirm that by running htdig -vvv. Look for the messages where > it outputs the Last-Modified header, and then says something like > "Converted ... to ...", which shows the original and regenerated date > string after parsing. If the second one is wrong, then you are right in > that the problem is somewhere in the parsing. In that case, try adding > trace prints in the parsedate() function in htdig/Document.cc (minimal > programming skills required, just look at how other debug output is done). I already tested this but unfortunately I don't get any Dates output when running with -vvv > If the second date string is fine, it could be a problem related to > refetching this info from the database, or some memory leak somewhere. > I thought you mentioned that an htdump showed correct, non-zero modtimes. > Such a problem would be harder to track down. Yes, datestamps (seconds since epoch) are in the dumped file. I'll add debug prints (already did some and always got a date of 0) to the files you mentioned and report back. Could you tell me which subroutine is responsible for parsing the timestamp from the local database (I guess reading and parsing that one is the problem)? Thanks again -- <http://www.StefanSeiz.com> Spamto: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: AMD - Your access to the experts on Hammer Technology! Open Source & Linux Developers, register now for the AMD Developer Symposium. Code: EX8664 http://www.developwithamd.com/developerlab _______________________________________________ htdig-general mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with a subject of unsubscribe FAQ: http://htdig.sourceforge.net/FAQ.html
