On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 02:25:18PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Justin, I'm sorry I didn't see this before. > > yuck!
Okay, I'll back out the EINVAL stuff. Yeah, I thought it was hokey. Sorry. I was more interested in the apr_md4/apr_md5 call and didn't pay attention to the other stuff. I'll do better next time. =) IIRC, the standing APR policy is to segfault in this case. Actually, I'll back out in a few hours (when I get back from class) to give others a chance to comment on this. If we were consistent, APR_EINVAL makes some sort of sense, but I don't think that we do this anywhere else. So, yeah, we should back this out. -- justin
