Re: [Patch] Rework of r1866425 ('Last-Modified' header)

2020-01-06 Thread Nathan Hartman
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:54 AM Sergey Raevskiy wrote: > > Hello! > > I've spent some time examining r1866425 [1] ('Last-Modified' header) and I > would like to suggest a patch with some rework related to this code. > > I see two main problems in r1866425: usage of the pointer comparison (which

Re: [Patch] Rework of r1866425 ('Last-Modified' header)

2019-12-10 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 6:35 PM Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:54 AM Sergey Raevskiy > wrote: > > I've spent some time examining r1866425 [1] ('Last-Modified' header) and I > > would like to suggest a patch with some rework related to this code. > > > > I see two main problems

Re: [Patch] Rework of r1866425 ('Last-Modified' header)

2019-12-10 Thread Nathan Hartman
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:54 AM Sergey Raevskiy wrote: > I've spent some time examining r1866425 [1] ('Last-Modified' header) and I > would like to suggest a patch with some rework related to this code. > > I see two main problems in r1866425: usage of the pointer comparison (which is > hackish

[Patch] Rework of r1866425 ('Last-Modified' header)

2019-12-09 Thread Sergey Raevskiy
Hello! I've spent some time examining r1866425 [1] ('Last-Modified' header) and I would like to suggest a patch with some rework related to this code. I see two main problems in r1866425: usage of the pointer comparison (which is hackish and relies on the implementation of parse_uri()) and using