Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 19365 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2001 15:53:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 19026 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2001 15:52:23 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:51:56 +0100 From: Martin Kraemer To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/main http_main.c Message-ID: <20010302165156.A99019@deejai2.mch.fsc.net> References: <20010302123559.60216.qmail@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from trawickj@bellsouth.net on Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 08:05:03AM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE X-Organization: Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Muenchen, W.Germany) X-Disclaimer: THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE WRITER AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE VIEWS OF FUJITSU-SIEMENS COMPUTERS X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 08:05:03AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > So maybe it avoids a segfault, but now we have a configured listening > socket we won't wake up for. Which is worse? Perhaps segfault is > better? (actually, I'd rather us report the error and terminate) Flame bait: assert(fd >= 0); ... > Fully prepared to be told I'm confused... Hmmm... Perhaps we should ask the authors of mod_ssl and KAME. Martin -- | Fujitsu Siemens | 81730 Munich, Germany