The significant change between TLS 1.0 and 1.1 is the addition of an explicit IV in the case of CBC encrypted records. Support for TLS 1.1 is needed in order to support TLS 1.2.
R=golang-dev, bradfitz
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/7880043
to avoid unintentionally clobber R9/R10.
Thanks Lucio for the suggestion.
PS: yes, this could be considered a big change (but not an API change), but
as it turns out even temporarily changes R9/R10 in user code is unsafe and
leads to very hard to diagnose problems later, better to disable using R9/R10
when the user first uses it.
See CL 6300043 and CL 6305100 for two problems caused by misusing R9/R10.
R=golang-dev, khr, rsc
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/9840043
This fixes two intra-page "type assertion" links that were broken in
different ways.
R=golang-dev, dsymonds
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/9797043
This text is added to doc.go:
Explicit argument indexes:
In Printf, Sprintf, and Fprintf, the default behavior is for each
formatting verb to format successive arguments passed in the call.
However, the notation [n] immediately before the verb indicates that the
nth one-indexed argument is to be formatted instead. The same notation
before a '*' for a width or precision selects the argument index holding
the value. After processing a bracketed expression [n], arguments n+1,
n+2, etc. will be processed unless otherwise directed.
For example,
fmt.Sprintf("%[2]d %[1]d\n", 11, 22)
will yield "22, 11", while
fmt.Sprintf("%[3]*[2].*[1]f", 12.0, 2, 6),
equivalent to
fmt.Sprintf("%6.2f", 12.0),
will yield " 12.00". Because an explicit index affects subsequent verbs,
this notation can be used to print the same values multiple times
by resetting the index for the first argument to be repeated:
fmt.Sprintf("%d %d %#[1]x %#x", 16, 17)
will yield "16 17 0x10 0x11".
The notation chosen differs from that in C, but I believe it's easier to read
and to remember (we're indexing the arguments), and compatibility with
C's printf was never a strong goal anyway.
While we're here, change the word "field" to "arg" or "argument" in the
code; it was being misused and was confusing.
R=rsc, bradfitz, rogpeppe, minux.ma, peter.armitage
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/9680043
This is a file of hints, not a file of polished text.
Let's not try to do polished text until we start the
release process.
R=golang-dev, gri
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/9750043
Several old TODOs are either resolved now (e.g. when is a return
needed), or are from a time the language wasn't frozen (^ for uints
only). Consolidated the others.
R=golang-dev, r
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/9599044
I read docs and wrote a crawler + link checker on the plane,
which also checks for #fragments. I'll send that out later
when it's less gross.
R=golang-dev, r
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/8729050
Although one may argue that they should be legal, gc (at least)
disallows byte order marks that are not the first code point
in the file. Added a sentence to the "Implementation restriction"
clause in the "Source code representation" section to document
this better.
Lifting this restriction (again - the rule has changed at least
twice already) would not break any existing programs, should
we later decide yet again to fiddle the rules about these little
fly specks.
R=golang-dev, dsymonds, gri
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/8649043
