Re: Alleged bug in resolver code

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> 
>    How about this patch instead? If res_nclose is not supposed to be
>    called without initialization, this patch shouldn't break anything.
> 
> 
>    H.J.
>    --
>    2000-07-14  H.J. Lu  <hjl@gnu.org>
> 
> 	   * resolv/res_send.c (res_nclose): Return if not initialized.
> 
> I'd rather not do *that*.  The res_nclose() function is part of the
> new thread-safe BIND-8 interfaces.  Those interfaces never call
> res_ninit() themselves (e.g. you always have to pass them an initialize
> resolver state).  Since these interfaces are new in glibc 2.2 there
> are no backwards compatibility issues, and I think we should 
> 

I see.

> I've got less problems with applying a patch similar to yours to
> res_close(), and I'll add that stuff if others on libc-hacker agree
> that that's a good idea.  However, I still think it's the broken
> programs that should be fixed.
 
I agree with Ulrich. Those programs are broken with glibc 2.2. But
they are not with glibc 2.1. In fact, we just changed the API on
res_close in 2.2. I don't think it is a good idea.

H.J.