Re: socket_perror() "bug"?

2014-04-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thiago Farina writes: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Thiago Farina writes: >> >>> In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I >>> think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or >>> the name of the function which genera

Re: socket_perror() "bug"?

2014-04-02 Thread Thiago Farina
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thiago Farina writes: > >> In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I >> think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or >> the name of the function which generated an error. >> >> But at line

Re: socket_perror() "bug"?

2014-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thiago Farina writes: > In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I > think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or > the name of the function which generated an error. > > But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. > > Should we

socket_perror() "bug"?

2014-03-30 Thread Thiago Farina
Hi, In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or the name of the function which generated an error. But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. Should we instead call perror() and ssl_s