Here are the split Dillo-Win32 patches, ready to merge into the upstream tree: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/patches.html I've cleaned up the code somewhat, such as removing the ugly conditionals from dsock.h. This version no longer includes the infamous "timeout kludge"; however, it must be built against a patched FLTK2 library, as the upstream implementation is still very badly broken. (The necessary patch is available from the Dillo-Win32 SourceForge site.) These patches produce a working ./src/dillo.exe. DPI has not yet been ported, as I presently have neither the time nor interest to do so. I'll probably get a binary package and installer up sometime in the next few days for anyone who wants to play around with the latest and greatest. Let me know if I need to double-check anything. Cheers, ~Benjamin
I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001. Do we have an official position on posix 2001? And, for that matter, C99? There at least used to be a bit in decode.c where I was discouraged from using a Unicode string because it was C99, but we also had a thread http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2008-June/004634.html on the fact that --enable-ansi is no good because we use too many C99isms. (I'd forgotten all about that thread, actually. I vote again for removing the option, since I can't imagine the variadic macros going away, for instance.)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001.
It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it.
Do we have an official position on posix 2001?
And, for that matter, C99?
Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows. Joerg
Joerg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001.
It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it.
I remember Justus doing some work on IPv6. Is it not complete?
Do we have an official position on posix 2001?
And, for that matter, C99?
Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows.
Yeah, I see that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations , level of support is generally 'mostly' or 'partial'. I was thinking that it might be valuable to decide on what subset is all right (which, admittedly, "Using gcc and not seeing any warnings" can be regarded as, after a fashion. :) -- even if only to bring awareness of "Oh, this is a C99ism; I hadn't realized." The dillo site does spell out, for instance, that for C++, "We also try to keep the C++ relatively simple. Dillo does use inheritance and templates, but that's about all."
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:03:31 -0500, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows.
Yeah, I see that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations , level of support is generally 'mostly' or 'partial'. I was thinking that it might be valuable to decide on what subset is all right (which, admittedly, "Using gcc and not seeing any warnings" can be regarded as, after a fashion. :) -- even if only to bring awareness of "Oh, this is a C99ism; I hadn't realized." The dillo site does spell out, for instance, that for C++, "We also try to keep the C++ relatively simple. Dillo does use inheritance and templates, but that's about all."
I'm not sure how formal our guidelines would need to be, but if the main problem is Windows support, whatever subset we're currently using is just fine. The only problems I've encountered are upstream FLTK bugs (their Windows version is frankly abysmal), and explicit Unix-isms, mostly involving inter-process communication. For what it's worth I'm using gcc-3.4.6 from MinGW 5.1.6. A little outdated, I know, but it's the last version with a coherent installer. ~Benjamin
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:05:38PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001.
It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it.
Do we have an official position on posix 2001?
Regarding the use of getnameinfo(), I'd be pragmatic. It's supported by glibc, all Free-, Net-, and OpenBSD and also Android's libc. So I don't see a problem using it. The memcpy however looks like it would create a stack overflow when used with IPv6 addresses. What about using struct sockaddr_storage and maybe even an additional assert() to make sure it doesn't overrun? The "undef D_DNS_THREADED" would be more appropriate in the WIN32 specific section of configure. Plus I'd skip the more "correct" thing in the comment, but that's just my personal feeling. Cheers, Johannes
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:48:40 -0500, Johannes Hofmann <Johannes.Hofmann@gmx.de> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:05:38PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001.
It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it.
Do we have an official position on posix 2001?
Regarding the use of getnameinfo(), I'd be pragmatic. It's supported by glibc, all Free-, Net-, and OpenBSD and also Android's libc.
...not to mention Microsoft's runtime library (inet_ntop wasn't added until Windows Vista, IIRC). So pretty much a win-win, then?
The memcpy however looks like it would create a stack overflow when used with IPv6 addresses. What about using struct sockaddr_storage and maybe even an additional assert() to make sure it doesn't overrun?
I'll trust your judgment on this one. I was more or less learning the sockets interface as I went along, so I just went with the first thing that compiled and ran. I'm sure that's not the worst piece of code in there...
The "undef D_DNS_THREADED" would be more appropriate in the WIN32 specific section of configure.
Sounds good to me. That bit was coded before the autoconf stuff, so that's my excuse for not doing it sooner. :-)
Plus I'd skip the more "correct" thing in the comment, but that's just my personal feeling.
Fine with me. That wasn't really intended to stay, anyway; I just figured there should be some justification for the change. I will try to fix that patch as soon as possible. In the meantime I'll await further feedback Cheers, ~Benjamin
Hi Benjamin, On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:44:47PM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
Here are the split Dillo-Win32 patches, ready to merge into the upstream tree: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/patches.html
I've cleaned up the code somewhat, such as removing the ugly conditionals from dsock.h. This version no longer includes the infamous "timeout kludge"; however, it must be built against a patched FLTK2 library, as the upstream implementation is still very badly broken. (The necessary patch is available from the Dillo-Win32 SourceForge site.)
These patches produce a working ./src/dillo.exe. DPI has not yet been ported, as I presently have neither the time nor interest to do so. I'll probably get a binary package and installer up sometime in the next few days for anyone who wants to play around with the latest and greatest.
Let me know if I need to double-check anything.
Thanks for taking the time to split and cleanup your patch. This way it will be easier to digest. I think we should discuss the individual patches in separate threads. Cheers, Johannes
participants (4)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com