Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<039601c16b00$88417dd0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20011111060349 DOT GA23640 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] Found a potential setup.exe problem while working on cygcheck
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:30:56 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	11 Nov 2001 22:36:48.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[59AB4360:01C16B01]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: [PATCH] Found a potential setup.exe problem while working on
cygcheck


> Here's YA reason for a unified library.  I found a problem while
working
> on cygcheck.  AFAICT, my code was correct but gcc was miscompiling it,
> ending up with a value of 'p' which was not a pointer.
>
> The code below fixes that problem.
>
> Does this look ok?  It seems to do the right thing in cygcheck.

Sure, but I think I've found the bug...

> cgf
>
>
>    if (!f.what[0])
>      {
>        p = strchr (ver, '\0');
>        strcpy (f.pkgtar, in_fn);
>        if ((p -= 4) >= ver && strcasecmp (p, "-src") == 0)
>   {
>     strcpy (f.what, "src");
>     *p = '\0';
>     p = f.pkgtar + (p - fn) + 4;

.......................^^^^^^....

 (- fn) is a constant, as fn is a local variable. This seems wrong to
me, as p is set relative to f.

Rob

- Raw text -