Kashyap Ashwin wrote:
Hello Paul,
Well, I wanted to limit the queue length of accepted connections (limit
pollset ring length), and I was relying on pollset_add() returning me
some error if I try to add a pollfd beyond the allocated size. Looks
like I have to do this myself.
Ah. Interesting. This i
Hello Paul,
Well, I wanted to limit the queue length of accepted connections (limit
pollset ring length), and I was relying on pollset_add() returning me
some error if I try to add a pollfd beyond the allocated size. Looks
like I have to do this myself.
Thanks,
Ashwin
-Original Message-
+1 NetWare
Brad
>>> Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Saturday, January 22, 2005
7:14:42 AM >>>
Paul Querna wrote:
> Since RC1, Several changes to the LDAP code were made to improve
support
> for Solaris 8 & 9.
Tested on:
LinuxPPC (Yellowdog 3): +1
MacOSX (10.0.3): +1
RHEL3: +1
FreeBSD: +1 (n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kashyap Ashwin wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I noticed that pollset->nalloc is not checked in pollset_add in epoll.c.
|
| select.c has:
|
| if (pollset->nelts == pollset->nalloc) {
|
| return APR_ENOMEM;
|
| }
|
|
|
| Shouldn't epoll.c also have this
Hi,
I noticed that pollset->nalloc is not checked in
pollset_add in epoll.c.
select.c has:
if (pollset->nelts ==
pollset->nalloc) {
return
APR_ENOMEM;
}
Shouldn't epoll.c also have this check?
Also, you are incrementing nelts for every pollset_add, but
never de
Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
What is the best practice for handling arrays of structures? Do you define
an array of pointers to structures, or just an array of structures? Or
does it matter?
Depends whether its sparse. For spares, the latter solution is better.
In other words this:
ps->dirconn
build/dbm.m4 differs between 0.9.x and trunk in a few small ways (diff
below).
All are safe changes, just introducing additional places and names to look
for a valid BDB install.
Therefore, I would like to request that 0.9.x's build/dbm.m4 be made the
same as trunk's, either by applying the pa
When invoking apr-iconv's buildconf, a warning is printed because
the APR_FIND_APR macro is invoked without parameters.
As a result, a warning is printed.
The attached patch invokes APR_FIND_APR with the 4th arg set to "0 1",
suppressing the warning, but my question is whether support for apr-0.x
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 at 10:06:16 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> This busts on Darwin as it uses libtool.m4 even though libtool is glibtool.
> And, libtoolize is usually going to be in the same location as libtool, so why
> the need for the extra PrintPath call?
>
> I think the right way to do it
On Jan 22, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
My "Newbie Question" of this past Thursday has gone unanswered.
That's weird...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ben Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 21, 2005 2:48:10 PM EST
To: Reid Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using APR << Newbie Qu
10 matches
Mail list logo
