| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|\ |
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
single push.
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| |\ \ \ |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \
| | |/ / / / /
| |/| | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
They do not work on the one machine where they must -- the release managers!
Appears that the NATIVE_TCLSH support isn't found on the 8.5 branch, so we
shouldn't expect to use it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
socket. Many thanks to Eric Boudaillier for the report and testing support.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / / / /
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In a DoRead() revision, it came to favor making every effort to fill
buffers, in preference to a more sensible goal of favoring avoiding calls
out to the driver if there's already enough data in the buffers to satisfy
the read operation. Result is many more calls out to recv() than are
a good idea. Ought to show up most glaringly when many Tcl_Read() calls
asking for small numbers of bytes (compared to buffer size) each, and that
matches the reported case.
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
will be called back with a mask value. "Mask is an integer mask indicating
which of the requested conditions actually exists for the channel; it will
contain ***a subset of the bits from the mask argument*** to
Tcl_CreateChannelHandler when the handler was created." (emhpasis added).
Tcl_NotifyChannel is not honoring this. It passes a mask value that may
contain bits not in common with the mask argument to T_CCH().
This commit is a one-liner patch adding in the masking step to make things
behave as documented. Thanks to apn for digging this out. (In combination
with other questionable code, this led to a hang in test http-4.6 on Windows)
Tcl_NotifyChannel() has had this error in all of recorded Tcl history.
It's hard to imagine any code dependent on it though. If any exists, it
can be revised to pass the mask value it truly needs to T_CCH() and end up
with code suitable both before and after this change.
If you concur, please merge to core-8-5-branch, and I'll take it from there.
|
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / / / /
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|/
|/| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
style dialogs when Tk is loaded on Windows
|
| | |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
style dialogs when Tk is loaded on Windows
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / /
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Don't know if that was by accident, but seems unwise in a Tcl patch release.
|
| | |_|_|_|_|_|_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Don't know if that was by accident, but seems unwise in a Tcl patch release.
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / / / / |
|
| | |_|_|_|_|_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / / / / |
|
| | |_|_|_|_|/ / / /
| |/| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
[read] on a channel @ EOF to attempt another pass through the channel drivers
instead of immediately returning an empty string. Correcting this misbehavior
appears too disruptive in a patch release to a long stable branch.
|
| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|/
|/| | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / / / /
| | | | | | | | /
| |_|_|_|_|_|_|/
|/| | | | | | | |
|
| | |_|_|_|/ /
| |/| | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \
| |/ / / / / /
| | | | | | /
| |_|_|_|_|/
|/| | | | | |
|
| | |_|_|/
| |/| | | |
|