[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-wget] Segmentation fault with current development version of wg

From: Darshit Shah
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] Segmentation fault with current development version of wget
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 21:38:05 +0530

Hi Giuseppe,

The patch supplied by you adding cmd_uppercase_String seems to break the
header generation since (*q++) causes the pointer to increment before the
c_toupper() method returns.

We should instead increment it only after the statement successfully
I have also converted the loop to a for loop to reduce number of lines.

One issue I see with the latest commit that suspends the method on
redirection is when using HEAD.
When I use --method=HEAD, I have no intentions of it getting converted to
GET upon redirection. In fact, I don't think wget should even follow the
redirection when opt.method is "HEAD".

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano <address@hidden>wrote:

> Daniel Stenberg <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Thu, 2 May 2013, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> >
> >> RFC 2606 doesn't seem very clear about it, and I can't find anywhere
> >> that PUT/OPTIONS/ANYTHING should be handled differently than POST
> >> wrt redirections.  I don't see why suspending a PUT request would be
> >> incorrect. Darshit, do you have any pointer?
> >
> > Please use the httpbis documents instead of solely relying on RFC2616:
> >
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics/?include_text=1
> > they're much updated and leaves less to interpret and is now based on
> > many years of real-world HTTP use.
> thanks for the additional info.
> This paragraph:
> "The 307 (Temporary Redirect) status code indicates that the target
>  resource resides temporarily under a different URI and the user agent
>  MUST NOT change the request method if it performs an automatic
>  redirection to that URI.  Since the redirection can change over time,
>  the client ought to continue using the original effective request URI
>  for future requests."
> seems to confirm that the patch from Gijs, that keeps the original
> method, is correct.
> I am going to clean it up and if nobody complains in a few hours, I will
> push it.
> --
> Giuseppe

Thanking You,
Darshit Shah
Research Lead, Code Innovation
Kill Code Phobia.
B.E.(Hons.) Mechanical Engineering, '14. BITS-Pilani

Attachment: 0001-Fix-issue-when-converting-string-to-uppercase.patch
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]