Hi G,
How specific is the ordering dependency by resolver code variant? by
version?
If this becomes a candidate for typing specific resolvers, its useful
knowledge
It varies quite a bit with the few I looked at, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wdopuAP2ddLlQcdtX-iAWdUULZ8
for
Hi Paul,
added really does just mean added not inserted.
I don't know what that means. If you add something to an unordered
set and then ask for the contents of the set, the order you'll get
its contents is undefined.
why do you call a section a set?
Because it isn't stated
In message 20150813133446.78c4228...@orac.inputplus.co.uk, Ralph Corderoy wri
tes:
Hi Paul,
added really does just mean added not inserted.
I don't know what that means. If you add something to an unordered
set and then ask for the contents of the set, the order you'll get
its
神明達哉 wrote:
At Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:23:59 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
So we are in agreement that glibc's stub resolver is acting really dumb
here?
I think that's overstating it. It appears that glibc implemented the
protocol according to a widely-held
