Description of problem: Rebasing nspr to 4.9.3 is required to be rebase nss-util and nss to 3.14 which have been requested to add support for TLS 1.1.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
(NSPR 4.9.2 shall be sufficient for NSS 3.14, NSPR 4.9.3 is not yet ready.)
could you please summarize changes since last build and point out some items that deserve to be tested (except TLS1.1?
Thank you in advance.
The only new change to NSPR are two new functions:
PR_SetCurrentThreadName() and PR_GetCurrentThreadName().
I believe the normal regression tests should suffice, I'll have Elio look up any tests for the two new NSPR functions (he'll be in Wednesday).
There are now tests for this functions that I can see.
** Set the name of the current thread, which will be visible in a debugger
** and accessible via a call to PR_GetThreadName().
NSPR_API(PRStatus) PR_SetThreadName(const char *name); changed to
NSPR_API(PRStatus) PR_SetCurrentThreadName(const char *name);
This is a renaming to make it's purpose clear.
** Return the name of "thread", if set. Otherwise return NULL.
NSPR_API(const char *) PR_GetThreadName(); changed to
NSPR_API(const char *) PR_GetThreadName(const PRThread *thread);
In this one it was implicitly the current thread only and now the caller
specifies the thread whose name is desired. This was requested to help in debugging.
I don't see any unit tests added specifically for this. If we write some simple test is best to add it to nspr's own test suite and contribute it upstream.
*** Bug 833149 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
how does it look like with those tests for functions mentioned in comment#7? Could I help somehow?
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hi Elio,
> how does it look like with those tests for functions mentioned in comment#7?
> Could I help somehow?
Yes, I could use a second pair of eyes to get them correctly sooner and it will help you undertand you understand nspr a bit better.
*** Bug 883780 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hmm, the bug is in the errata, I don't see any unanswered QA questions, moving to ON_QA.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.