12 Jun 2012 13:54
release time
Hi I want to release a c-ares 1.8.1 soonish that has the ares_dup() function fixed, so if there's anything in particular you want shipped in a release, speak up now! -- -- / daniel.haxx.se
Hi I want to release a c-ares 1.8.1 soonish that has the ares_dup() function fixed, so if there's anything in particular you want shipped in a release, speak up now! -- -- / daniel.haxx.se
On 6/12/2012 6:54 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > I want to release a c-ares 1.8.1 soonish that has the ares_dup() > function fixed, so if there's anything in particular you want shipped in > a release, speak up now! Attached is a change for the "relative names" issue I posted before. The change is only for Windows native, *untested*, and it only adds the use of the domain so relative names can resolve. -- René Berber
--- /home/rberber/c-ares-1.8.0/ares_init.c.orig 2012-04-22 10:22:11.000000000 -0500
+++ /home/rberber/c-ares-1.8.0/ares_init.c 2012-05-27 18:58:49.343750000 -0500
<at> <at> -95,13 +95,15 <at> <at>
static const char *try_option(const char *p, const char *q, const char *opt);
static int init_id_key(rc4_key* key,int key_data_len);
+#if !defined(WATT32) && !defined(ANDROID) && !defined(__ANDROID__)
+static int config_domain(ares_channel channel, char *str);
+#endif
#if !defined(WIN32) && !defined(WATT32) && \
!defined(ANDROID) && !defined(__ANDROID__)
static int sortlist_alloc(struct apattern **sortlist, int *nsort,
struct apattern *pat);
static int ip_addr(const char *s, ssize_t len, struct in_addr *addr);
static void natural_mask(struct apattern *pat);
-static int config_domain(ares_channel channel, char *str);
(Continue reading)On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, René Berber wrote: > Attached is a change for the "relative names" issue I posted before. > > The change is only for Windows native, *untested*, and it only adds the use > of the domain so relative names can resolve. Untested, sure. I don't think it is a good idea for merge code that is untested just before a release and possibly never. Did anyone test this patch and think it is a good idea? -- -- / daniel.haxx.se
On 6/15/2012 6:37 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, René Berber wrote: > >> Attached is a change for the "relative names" issue I posted before. >> >> The change is only for Windows native, *untested*, and it only adds >> the use of the domain so relative names can resolve. > > Untested, sure. I don't think it is a good idea for merge code that is > untested just before a release and possibly never. > > Did anyone test this patch and think it is a good idea? Tested. It works fine where the original didn't. Test environment: Windows XP sp3, domain defined in Local Area Connection, TCP/Advanced/DNS:"DNS sufix for this connection". DNS server: BIND with resolver (lwres) disabled, split view configuration. Test using the ahost program built as native executable with MinGW gcc compiler (actually Cygwin's cross compiling to MinGW). -- -- René Berber
RSS Feed