Huh, looking at that code again, don't we have a bug in the svn source code? Seems to me that "if (target + sizeof(apr_uint32_t) <= source)" is the correct condition, not "if (end + sizeof(apr_uint32_t) <= target)"
Huh, looking at that code again, don't we have a bug in the svn source code? Seems to me that "if (target + sizeof( apr_uint32_ t) <= source)" is the correct condition, not "if (end + sizeof( apr_uint32_ t) <= target)"