Re: Just annooyng Bug...

[email protected] (Larry Jones) writes:

> Hrvoje Niksic writes:
>> 
>> Larry, does your patch include the fix provided by Svetlozar?
>
> Yes -- Svetlozar didn't provide a real fix, just a note that the
> condition should be "something like" some code that is not correct.
> My patch has the correct code.

You are right.  Svetlozar uses "depth==INFINITE_RECURSION", whereas it
should be "opt.reclevel==INFINITE_RECURSION", as in your patch.

>> Do you have a test case for these problems?
>
> I just use a real web site and explicitly exclude .html files.  With
> an infinite recursion limit, the defective code doesn't recurse at
> all.

You're right.  I missed that the problem only shows when recursion
level is infinite.

>> BTW shouldn't page_requisites only add *one* more level to
>> max. retrieval depth?
>
> You'd think so, but the comment earlier in recur.c (somewhere around
> line 297) says: [that we allow one additional level to allow -p to
> download frames].

I think you are right, that comment applies here too.  I'll add an
explanatory comment.