You want me to add a couple of `void*`?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Fedor Indutny wrote:
>
> The only thing that is missing is an extra field.
>>
>
> What about coming up with a way to make the struct possible to change in
> the future so that
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Fedor Indutny wrote:
The only thing that is missing is an extra field.
What about coming up with a way to make the struct possible to change in the
future so that we won't have to create yet another function later down the
line?
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
Jakub,
In the more recent patch, I'm returning the new structure as you have just
said.
The only thing that is missing is an extra field.
Cheers,
Fedor.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:12:16PM +0700, Fedor Indutny wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > I
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:12:16PM +0700, Fedor Indutny wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> I had a strange de-ja-vu about it, and I was right. I already did one patch
> like that in past.
>
> Anyway, I redid it - so including both old and new versions for your
> reviewal.
>
> Thank you,
> Fedor.
As a strange
Daniel,
I had a strange de-ja-vu about it, and I was right. I already did one patch
like that in past.
Anyway, I redid it - so including both old and new versions for your
reviewal.
Thank you,
Fedor.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Fedor Indutny wrote:
> Ok, sounds like a plan.
>
> On Wed,
