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
I was just looking at the smtpd_request_rec in mod_smtpd, and I had a
few questions.
It seems that extensions and rcpt info is being stored in an apr_hash_t,
but it's only being keyed by integer. If you're only going to use ints
as keys, it seems like an apr_array_header_t would be more
On Aug 14, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I was just looking at the smtpd_request_rec in mod_smtpd, and I had
a few questions.
It seems that extensions and rcpt info is being stored in an
apr_hash_t, but it's only being keyed by integer. If you're only
going to use ints as
Rian Hunter wrote:
Ah I didn't even realize the key allocation, I'll fix that. Thanks!
The reason I don't use an apr_array_t or similar is that I thought that
the number of elements in that type has to be fixed and can't be
automatically extended and allocated on the fly, If I'm wrong I
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Rian Hunter wrote:
Ah I didn't even realize the key allocation, I'll fix that. Thanks!
The reason I don't use an apr_array_t or similar is that I thought
that the number of elements in that type has to be fixed and can't be
automatically extended and allocated on the
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
