You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2011/08/26 16:33:31 UTC
PoC ready
Should I commit or post?
RE: PoC ready
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
@@ -252,6 +205,9 @@
off_last += start64 - off_first;
copy = out_first;
}
+ else {
+ APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(bbout, copy);
+ }
if (end64 - off_last != (apr_uint64_t)e->length) {
rv = apr_bucket_split(copy, (apr_size_t)(end64 + 1 - off_last));
if (rv == APR_ENOTIMPL) {
This one seems to be a merge error in your working copy and was fixed by Stefan in r1161791
Regards
Rüdiger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 17:19
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: PoC ready
>
> Committed... r 1162131
>
Re: PoC ready
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
As a quick ref, here's the q&d ruby script I'm using
for the merging algo:
Re: PoC ready
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Will look right after lunch, but *please* feel free to edit,
enhance, fix as needed… That's why I committed it so we can
all work on it…
Cheers!
On Aug 26, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> I think the
>
> + if (in_merge) {
> + overlaps++;
> + continue;
> + } else {
> + new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
> + *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%" APR_OFF_T_FMT,
> + ostart, oend);
> + idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
> + idx->start = ostart;
> + idx->end = oend;
> num_ranges++;
> - range++;
> + }
>
> should be really
>
> + if (in_merge) {
> + overlaps++;
> + continue;
> + } else {
> + new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
> + *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%" APR_OFF_T_FMT,
> + ostart, oend);
> + idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
> + idx->start = ostart;
> + idx->end = oend;
>
> + ostart = start;
> + oend = end;
> + in_merge = 1;
>
> num_ranges++;
> - range++;
> + }
>
> Otherwise I think 0-1,1000-1001
> will result in
>
> 0-1
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
>> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 17:19
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: PoC ready
>>
>> Committed... r 1162131
>>
>
RE: PoC ready
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
I think the
+ if (in_merge) {
+ overlaps++;
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
+ *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%" APR_OFF_T_FMT,
+ ostart, oend);
+ idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
+ idx->start = ostart;
+ idx->end = oend;
num_ranges++;
- range++;
+ }
should be really
+ if (in_merge) {
+ overlaps++;
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ new = (char **)apr_array_push(merged);
+ *new = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%" APR_OFF_T_FMT "-%" APR_OFF_T_FMT,
+ ostart, oend);
+ idx = (indexes_t *)apr_array_push(indexes);
+ idx->start = ostart;
+ idx->end = oend;
+ ostart = start;
+ oend = end;
+ in_merge = 1;
num_ranges++;
- range++;
+ }
Otherwise I think 0-1,1000-1001
will result in
0-1
Regards
Rüdiger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 17:19
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: PoC ready
>
> Committed... r 1162131
>
Re: PoC ready
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Committed… r 1162131
Re: PoC ready
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 26, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" [mailto:ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com]
>> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 16:38
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: PoC ready
>>
>> IMHO commit and let it be fixed in trunk.
>
> I mean improved :-).
> Not to imply your code has errors, but there is always room for improvement :-)
>
of course… almost no one develops bug-free and error-free code,
except for a handful of talented lurkers :)
*duck*
RE: PoC ready
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" [mailto:ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 16:38
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: PoC ready
>
> IMHO commit and let it be fixed in trunk.
I mean improved :-).
Not to imply your code has errors, but there is always room for improvement :-)
Regards
Rüdiger
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> > Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 16:34
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: PoC ready
> >
> > Should I commit or post?
> >
>
RE: PoC ready
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
IMHO commit and let it be fixed in trunk.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2011 16:34
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: PoC ready
>
> Should I commit or post?
>