Re: socket_perror() "bug"?
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:00:37
Thiago Farina [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Thiago Farina [off-list ref] writes:quoted
In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or the name of the function which generated an error. But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. Should we instead call perror() and ssl_socket_error() with func?Looks that way to me, at least from a cursory look.Would you accept such a patch?
This back-and-forth makes me wonder what is going on. Why not send a full patch with a proper proposed commit log message to the list and see what happens?
quoted hunk
diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c index 0bc6f7f..bb04768 100644 --- a/imap-send.c +++ b/imap-send.c@@ -181,10 +181,10 @@ static void socket_perror(const char *func,struct imap_socket *sock, int ret) case SSL_ERROR_NONE: break; case SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL: - perror("SSL_connect"); + perror(func); break; default: - ssl_socket_perror("SSL_connect"); + ssl_socket_perror(func); break; } } else -- Thiago Farina