The added call to usage() on line 2165 is missing the closing parenthesis.
JJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/17/2004 11:22:35 AM
madhum 2004/03/17 10:22:35 Modified: support ab.c Log: Limit the concurrency to MAX_CONCURRENCY. Otherwise, ab may dump core (calloc fails) when a arbitrarily huge value is
Oh man !! I don't know how I missed it
!
Thanks
-Madhu
-Original
Message-From: Jean-Jacques Clar
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:11
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support ab.c
The added call
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clar2004/03/16 08:57:02
Modified:support ab.c
Log:
added check on apr_pollset_create() return value to exit ab it case it fails.
On NetWare using a concurrency higher than 64 is segfaulting because of FD_SETSIZE
as a value of 64.
Index: ab.c
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2003/07/29 11:25:15
Modified:.CHANGES
support ab.c
Log:
ab: Work over non-loopback on Unix again.
(Broken as of 2.0.47 due to dependence on an APR bug which was fixed
in 2.0.47.)
PR: 21495
--- ab.c 21 Jul 2003
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2003/07/29 11:25:15
Modified:.CHANGES
support ab.c
Log:
ab: Work over non-loopback on Unix again.
(Broken as of 2.0.47 due to dependence on an APR bug which was fixed
in 2.0.47.)
PR: 21495
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2003/07/29 11:25:15
Modified:.CHANGES
support ab.c
Log:
ab: Work over non-loopback on Unix again.
(Broken as of 2.0.47 due to dependence on an APR bug which was fixed
in 2.0.47.)
PR: 21495
on 7/3/03 9:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-char *buff = (char *) malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
+char *buff = malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
Whyfor did you get rid of the cast? This may give you compiler warnings on
some platforms.
S.
--
Covalent Technologies
From: Sander Temme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:02 PM
on 7/3/03 9:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-char *buff = (char *) malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
+char *buff = malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
Whyfor did you get rid of the cast?
* Sander Striker wrote:
From: Sander Temme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:02 PM
on 7/3/03 9:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-char *buff = (char *) malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
+char *buff = malloc(postlen + reqlen + 1);
Whyfor did
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:41:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1on anything which
- shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
be compared different version numbers
Personally, I think that is your logical fallacy. I don't believe
you can reliably compare
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 30 April 2002 23:42
I'd like to see either the seperate version for ab
patch reverted _or_ ab moved out of the tree. I
feel very strongly about only having 'one'* version
scheme to care about in the httpd tree.
+0to move it
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:41:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1on anything which
- shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
be compared different version numbers
Personally, I think that is your logical fallacy. I don't believe
From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 01 May 2002 09:50
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:41:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 on anything which
- shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
be compared different version
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
-1 on anything which
- shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
be compared different version numbers
or
- which shows in the output of AB identical version numbers
even though the results cannot be
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
Although the version number may not help in being able to compare results,
it does help to track down what the state of the sourcetree was when this
ab was compiled. So, +1 on the disclaimer, -0 on removing all signs of
a version number.
Agreed.
Personally I just don't see what the big deal is. People like having ab
:-) :-) - I think that all that happened was that the #define in the 1.3
version unintentionally got translated during the 2.0 move to the
BASE_SERVER version; not realizing it had intentioanlly its own
version number
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like Error
Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning ful
bug reports ?
At this point, I don't think so because httpd-2.0 will only work
specific versions of APR that must be in-tree. Remember that people
can only legitimately file bug reports off released versions. People
Ack - I had not thougd of that - that is perfectly true - so a release
version of Apache implies a single APR version - even across platforms.
Dw.
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like
Error
Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning
ful
bug reports ?
At
specific versions of APR that must be in-tree. Remember that people
can only legitimately file bug reports off released versions. People
Not necessarily. As Ryan said, you want the bug reports *before* the release
so that you can fix them. It'd be good for reproducability if reports be
filed
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like Error
Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning ful
bug
Hi,
I'd like to see either the seperate version for ab
patch reverted _or_ ab moved out of the tree. I
feel very strongly about only having 'one'* version
scheme to care about in the httpd tree.
Sander
*) one in the broadest sense of the word... ofcource
we already have to be/are being
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
I'd like to see either the seperate version for ab
patch reverted _or_ ab moved out of the tree. I
feel very strongly about only having 'one'* version
scheme to care about in the httpd tree.
+1 to keep it (ie, use httpd's version numbers)
-0 to
I'd like to see either the seperate version for ab
patch reverted _or_ ab moved out of the tree. I
feel very strongly about only having 'one'* version
scheme to care about in the httpd tree.
+0 to move it out of the tree.
+0 to restore the 1.3 versioning situation.
-1 on
if the above implies moving out of the tree; then +1 for that. If the
above can be accomplished by having the APR version # exposed or something
simpler - great. Otherwise - move it out.
If I may voice my two cents as former measurement taker migrated to tester:
I think Apache benefits from
Having it separated out like you have just changed it to is going
to cause lots of problems for us maintaining it. While your
As to wether this is realistic: From apache-1.3/src/support/ab.c:
#define VERSION 1.3d
which has been there for some XXX years and allowed us to compare
ab
I think maybe we should move ab out of the tree in this case...
david
Having it separated out like you have just changed it to is going
to cause lots of problems for us maintaining it. While your
As to wether this is realistic: From apache-1.3/src/support/ab.c:
#define VERSION 1.3d
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 April 2002 11:42
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 08:31:14AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dirkx 02/04/25 01:31:14
Modified:support ab.c
Log:
During the 1.3-2.0 migragrion; ab its #defined VERSION own string was
comments below...
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:09:59PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aaron 02/04/24 10:09:59
Modified:support ab.c
Log:
Major improvement in concurrent processing for AB:
- Enable non-blocking connects.
- Prevent quasi-blocking mode apr_recv (which
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 07:13:59PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron,
Could you also ++i the version number ? I.e. in the past we changed the
VERSION string each time we made a change which made results of that
version of AB incomparable with previous ones. See comments in the header
Thank goodness for compilers who can read xprintf syntax, and thanks for taking
a few minutes on this, Jeff.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 5:30 AM
Subject: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support ab.c
trawick 01
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thank goodness for compilers who can read xprintf syntax, and thanks for taking
and thank goodness for cron and unattended updates/builds that
compare old make.stderr with new make.stderr and send e-mail as
appropriate :)
--
Jeff Trawick |
32 matches
Mail list logo
