apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Some pending pathches for review/commit
Date Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:54:39 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 10:47 AM 9/19/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Actually, it inhibits discussion to do that :(  I would like
> to see Ben Laurie feedback to 2. and 5. since he understand
> these better than most, and they implicate some unspoken
> assumptions that he should review.  Ben?
> 
> For your 1. and 3. and 4. they are fine, simply commit them,
> +1 to fix in both head and APR_0_9.
> 
> 
>>2. apr_random.patch
>>
>>Set the hash tables to zero on init.
>>Although the test are passing now, some deep explanation
>>would be fine (probably from Ben Laurie).
>>I presume that the unix is setting the
>>memory to zero while on WIN32 it is set to 0xCD, and that's
>>why the expected test values are never met on WIN32.

Ah, this would also explain David's problems with BeOS, probably. 
However, I am concerned that unused memory shouldn't be, err, used. I'm 
not sure about this, though, since using unused memory for random 
numbers is a rare case where its OK - and I don't have time to check the 
code right now, but I'm wondering if this is indicative of some deeper bug?

>>5. sha2.patch
>>
>>Just fixes the compile time warnings caused by assigning 64
>>bit values to 32 bit integers, by casting them to unsigned int.

I'd be happier if the assignees were changed to the correct type.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
ApacheCon! 13-17 November! http://www.apachecon.com/

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Mime
View raw message