On Aug 15, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Index: smtp_protocol.c
===
--- smtp_protocol.c(revision 232680)
+++ smtp_protocol.c(working copy)
[...]
On Aug 14, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Rian Hunter wrote:
This patch looks good but I have some questions. You seem to use
the returned pointers from apr_array_push without checking if
they are NULL. Even in apr_array_push, apr_palloc is used without
checking for NULL
Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Index: smtp_protocol.c
===
--- smtp_protocol.c (revision 232680)
+++ smtp_protocol.c (working copy)
[...]
+for (i = 0; i sr-extensions-nelts; ++i) {
+ ap_rprintf(r,
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Index: smtp_protocol.c
===
--- smtp_protocol.c (revision 232680)
+++ smtp_protocol.c (working copy)
[...]
+for (i = 0; i sr-extensions-nelts; ++i) {
+
Garrett Rooney wrote:
[...]
+for (i = 0; i sr-extensions-nelts; ++i) {
+ ap_rprintf(r, %d-%s\r\n, 250, ((char
**)sr-extensions-nelts)[i]);
^
That should be elts, shouldn't it?
Yes indeed, it should. One
This patch looks good but I have some questions. You seem to use the
returned pointers from apr_array_push without checking if they are
NULL. Even in apr_array_push, apr_palloc is used without checking for
NULL even though apr_palloc can definitely return NULL.
Because of that, I'm not
Rian Hunter wrote:
This patch looks good but I have some questions. You seem to use the
returned pointers from apr_array_push without checking if they are
NULL. Even in apr_array_push, apr_palloc is used without checking for
NULL even though apr_palloc can definitely return NULL.
Because
