> but not what communication protocol is actually being used.
http, https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/dir-spec.txt
section 1 line 184 "All directory information is uploaded and
downloaded with HTTP."
If you search through the document for http, you will find most of the
uris a
> This is actually a normal and useful thing to do in C. (I think
> you're used to C++, where it is indeed much less useful due to the
> richer variety of abstractions.)
Actually, its pretty much always a horrible idea, if you're doing it,
you're asking for trouble. I wrote and reviewed C for ~10
the same as an
integer, or unsigned long if you prefer.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:50 AM, not me wrote:
>>> Look more closely at those libevent headers: this is only the case on
>>> Windows. Yeah, it's at least ar
> There's nothing wrong with sizeof(long) == sizeof(int),
Agreed.
> but I assure you that C89 does require sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void *)
Really? where? It doesn't seem to be in the C89 standard I just flipped through.
I flipped through it because this sounded horribly wrong. Here's what I found
tories and build a circuit. I'm fairly
positive the amount of code requisite there is far less than reading
through/understanding and modifying hundreds/thousands? of lines of
code. Best of luck with everything.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Fri,
nation in some cases. Redhat (at least some versions,
didnt go pull down their patched up libc to validate its still like
this) would always return the full length it would have written and
can be made to blow up on some unicode sequences in some locales.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:44 AM, not me wrote
> Win64 is the *only* flat-memory-space ABI ever promulgated in
> which pointers cannot safely be converted to 'unsigned long'
> and back without loss of information. This is a willful
> violation of requirements in C89 and is IMNSHO sufficient
> justification to refuse to port to this platfor
ats just dumb.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2013-05-17 11:32 PM, not me wrote:
>>
>> ... using intptr_t as a return value for socket() ...
>
>
> Look more closely at those libevent headers: this is only the case on
> Windows. Yeah, it&#
> AFAIK, Tor has only been compiled as a Win32 app, never as a Win64 app.
More or less what I thought, tyvm.
> In the past, most of the time, Tor only builds on Windows with GCC/MinGW. But
> recently,
>Tor works primarily on Windows via MinGW toolchain, AFAIK still MinGW32. It
>has worked a few
Hi,
It seems fairly self-evident that tor hasn't been build for 64-bit
windows and questionable whether it's ever been built in an
environment that doesn't utilize mingw. There are literally hundreds
of thousands of warnings about integer truncation, at least some of
which seem somewhat problemati
10 matches
Mail list logo
