Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:42:25 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Leonid Pauzner cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: libc' getenv optimization (patch3) In-Reply-To: <2.7.9.LL4Z.H4NNAK@pauzner.dnttm.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Leonid Pauzner wrote: > > Also, IIRC, functions from dosexec.c bypass `getenv' and `putenv', > > and poke environ[] directly. > use grep -r ??? I meant to ask whether you tested your code with programs that call functions from dosexec.c, since they poke environ[]. > >> My hash table is only used in `getenv', and is resynced inside getenv. > > > What about `putenv' and `setenv'? > only getenv. (putenv left unchanged). So after a call to `putenv', environ[] and hash_env[] are out of sync?