- Mar 14, 2016
-
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
... to allow torture tests then too.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
As just discussed on the mailing list, also document how we prefer spacing in expressions.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
cppcheck warned: [src/tool_urlglob.c:283]: (style) Checking if unsigned variable 'step_n' is less than zero.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
Ripped out from CONTRIBUTE into its own document, but also extended from there.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
Since sh_getentry() now checks for invalid sockets itself and by narrowing the scope of the remove_sock_from_hash variable.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
Simplify the code by using a single entry that looks for a socket in the socket hash. As indicated in #712, the code looked for CURL_SOCKET_BAD at some point and that is ineffective/wrong and this makes it easier to avoid that.
-
Jaime Fullaondo authored
Closes #712
-
- Mar 13, 2016
-
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Maksim Kuzevanov authored
Closes #703
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Steve Holme authored
-
- Mar 12, 2016
-
-
Steve Holme authored
Rather than use a 0 and 1 integer base result code use a TRUE / FALSE based success code.
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Steve Holme authored
-
- Mar 11, 2016
-
-
Steve Holme authored
-
Steve Holme authored
Rather than use 0 and 1 integer base result codes use a FALSE / TRUE based success code.
-
- Mar 10, 2016
-
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Steve Holme authored
warning C4267: 'function': conversion from 'size_t' to 'int', possible loss of data
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
... as it implies we need to check for that on all the other variable references as well (as Coverity otherwise warns us for missing NULL checks), and we're alredy making sure that the pointer is never NULL.
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
RFC 6265 section 4.1.1 spells out that the first name/value pair in the header is the actual cookie name and content, while the following are the parameters. libcurl previously had a more liberal approach which causes significant problems when introducing new cookie parameters, like the suggested new cookie priority draft. The previous logic read all n/v pairs from left-to-right and the first name used that wassn't a known parameter name would be used as the cookie name, thus accepting "Set-Cookie: Max-Age=2; person=daniel" to be a cookie named 'person' while an RFC 6265 compliant parser should consider that to be a cookie named 'Max-Age' with an (unknown) parameter 'person'. Fixes #709
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
Such a return value isn't documented but could still happen, and the curl tool code checks for it. It would happen when the underlying Curl_poll() function returns an error. Starting now we mask that error as a user of curl_multi_wait() would have no way to handle it anyway. Reported-by: Jay Satiro Closes #707
-
- Mar 09, 2016
-
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
Daniel Stenberg authored
-
- Mar 08, 2016
-
-
Steve Holme authored
Regression since commit 710f14ed. Bug: https://github.com/curl/curl/issues/422 Reported-by: Justin Ehlert
-
Jay Satiro authored
..SH should be .SH Bug: https://github.com/curl/curl/issues/705 Reported-by: Eric S. Raymond
-
Tim Rühsen authored
Closes #658
-