Hi all,
While testing some tolerances in the LDAP cache when it runs out of
memory, I discovered that apr_shm_calloc() segfaults if you attempt to
allocate a block of memory bigger than the memory block you orginally
defined.
Surely in this case apr_shm_calloc() should return NULL instead?
Progr
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:19:40AM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
in
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:19:40AM -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
> At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
> >> At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> >> > > As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
> >
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just started playing with /error/HTTP_NOT_FOUND.html.var at
> OtherBill's suggestion. Even with this patch, the seek back to the end
> of the de body is not going to the right place.
>
> gotta read some code...
I know the patch is a big improvement a
"Brian Havard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:14:23 +1000 (EST), Brian Havard wrote:
>
> >On 28 Aug 2001 01:56:09 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>wrowe 01/08/27 18:56:09
> >>
> >> Modified:file_io/win32 readwrite.c seek.c
> >> Log:
> >>Found a very ug
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:28:04AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> We should only keep both API's for the short term. Any API that we release
> in a beta we need to support forever, so I am VERY much against releasing
> a beta with the old locking API, because it is a very poor API.
I have fundamental
On Wednesday 29 August 2001 11:25, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:50:12AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > My only other comment, is that while doing development, it would be
> > REALLY cool if we could have access to both API's, which should end up
> > pointing to the same imple
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:50:12AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> My only other comment, is that while doing development, it would be REALLY
> cool if we could have access to both API's, which should end up pointing to
> the same implementation.
+1 *if* we keep both APIs. Otherwise, +0 - I'm not aga
On Wednesday 29 August 2001 09:53, Aaron Bannert wrote:
++1. As I have said all along, the common function for all locks, was
a point of contention between Manoj and I. I won, but I was wrong. It's
time to fix that mistake.
> Here are a few questions I have:
>
> 1) Do we also need these? I rea
The following is a proposed API change to the apr_lock.h interface. It basicly
breaks out the lock types into the 4 main types, then adds condition variables.
I'd like to stimulate some discussion on this topic, and get some +1's to
proceed with the proposal (or parts of it at least):
- thread mut
On Sun, 2001-08-26 at 01:52, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:27:23PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > does anyone have any objections to this?
> > all it is really doing is removing the MACRO definitions
> > and splitting up the apr_dbm into 4 files (a interface, and 3
> > implementati
- Forwarded message from Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:26:47 -0400
From: Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Luke Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
At 10:05 AM 08/29/2001, William A Rowe wrote:
> At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
> > > independent of daylight savings (e.g., always 5 for
US/Eastern).
>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:45:39PM +1000, Luke Howard wrote:
>
> The URL:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/security/hh/secpack/customsecfunctions_9js1.asp
>
> is worth a look as it describes the API used to retrieve the
> authorization data for a user and crea
At 07:36 PM 08/28/2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:16:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the result of the calculation should be
> independent of daylight savings (e.g., always 5 for US/Eastern).
Then the calculation must be wrong, since EDT is -0400. EST
15 matches
Mail list logo
