Pike-devel June 2021

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

4 participants
4 discussions

Pike Meet-up 2018-Q1
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 20 Oct '21

20 Oct '21

Hi. At Pike Conference 2017 it was decided that we ought to hold a more informal meeting in Linköping ~ once every quarter. As the three month mark from the conference is coming up soon, it seems time to announce the first such meeting for 2018: Pike Meet-up 2018-Q1 Date: 2018-02-03 (Sat) Time: 10:00 - afternoon/evening Place: Roxen IS AB S:t Larsgatan 22A Linköping Welcome! /grubba

2 13

Bleeding-edge Pike broadly operable - code review appreciated
by Chris Angelico 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

I just pushed a few changes to master that get the build working (on 64-bit Debian Linux, no other platforms tested). They're mostly small changes and I hope they won't break anything. This actually gets "make doc" happy again after a good while, so it would be really awesome if I haven't just broken something unrelated :) There's another, more significant, change that happened in the past few months. It's not a simple fix. The default behaviour of Protocols.DNS.async_host_to_ip, which is used by Protocols.HTTP, changed from "only look up A records" to "look up AAAA and A records, and return the first AAAA if found, otherwise the first A". Unfortunately everything is built to assume that there's at most one IP address for that host name. The ultimate solution would be to have an asynchronous "establish connection" call, which will do an async DNS lookup, then attempt to connect to each IP in turn until one succeeds. That would require some other changes, and I'm not sure how it would interact with HTTP keep-alive, for instance. As a lesser solution, would it be reasonable to have a method like Protocols.DNS.prefer_ipv4() to invert the return order of DNS records? ChrisA

4 12

Type checking segfault in Pike 8.1
by Chris Angelico 28 Jun '21

28 Jun '21

void boom(mapping info) {m_delete(info[0]);} It ought to give a compilation error (not enough args to m_delete) but it segfaults the interpreter on compilation. Correct behaviour is restored if the argument is explicitly cast to mapping: void boom(mapping info) {m_delete((mapping)info[0]);} boom.pike:1:Too few arguments to m_delete (got 1). boom.pike:1:Expected: mixed. boom.pike:1:Function type: boom.pike:1:Got : scope(0,function(object, mixed : mixed) | function(mapping((0=mixed):(1=mixed)), 0 : 1) | function(multiset((0=mixed)), 0 : int(1bit))). Pike: Failed to compile script. The crash happens in src/pike_ctypes.cmod, get_first_arg_type, in the T_MANY case - fun_type->car is NULL. ChrisA

1 0

Re: Bleeding-edge Pike broadly operable - code review appreciated
by Chris Angelico 10 Jun '21

10 Jun '21

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:49 AM Martin Nilsson (Coppermist) @ Pike (-) developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: > > > > >Okay. Here's a proposal: > > > >1) Have a Protocols.DNS.prefer_ipv6() that chooses whether IPv6 is > >preferred over IPv4 for simple lookups. Calling prefer_ipv6(1) will > >result in the current behaviour, calling prefer_ipv6(0) will return to > >previous behaviour. This just changes the order of responses, nothing > >else. > > No, add new methods for new behavior. The old function continues to > return IPv4 and the new one does IPv6+IPv4. Or have some new parameter > to control preference on a per call basis. We don't want global states > in modules. Trouble with that is that it'd need to be carried through as part of the API for everything that uses it. So Protocols.HTTP.Query would need to have something to control which one it prefers, and Protocols.HTTP.get_url would need to have something to set that parameter, etc. But maybe that won't matter, if the other parts of the plan are worth doing. ChrisA

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel June 2021