Found a bug in siege #1
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…res in the cookie string if it was not explicitly defined, compiler warning pointed the way
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13485706/how-do-i-get-siege-to-use-the-cookies-for-benchmark-and-load-testing
Turns out the 2 problems were in cookie.c
The first was the httponly; without an =
The second was a compiler warning that basically pointed out the expiration date on the cookie would be wrong.
I still have to specify --header "Extra:crap" or it segfaults on me. Can't really see why, gdb claims it is on line 163, and for me gcc is passing the wrong address to strncasestr (which is horribly inefficient BTW). Do you get this if you don't specify extra headers?