Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/18/14:10:26
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:12:01PM +0200, Alois Steindl wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:29:36 -0400,
>Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com> wrote:
>>Looking at the entry that is in termcap for linux, I don't see any way
>>around this. I did compare it against the entry from Red Hat and I see
>>that they just squeak in under 1024.
>
>I get 1042 for linux and 1034 for cygwin
In that case, linux is non-compliant too. I believe that the 1024 is
supposed to include the null byte.
>disappears if I increase this buffer or avoid termcap at all.
>Increasing the limit silently (quite likely accidently) can break a lot
>of existing programs - like e.g. fweb - , even if it were documented
>in the man page. Buffer overflow is a major source of programming
>problems. Let's hope that this kind of errors is not growing in the
>Red Hat programs, since I use Linux Red Hat much more frequently than
>cygwin.
However, the termcap entry has been in this state for a long time with
very few (if any) bug reports prior to this.
I suggested that you might want to provide a patch if you can find
something which could be nuked from the termcap entry. If that is not
something that you are willing to do, then the other alternative is to
modify your program.
If I see a bunch of people reporting this problem then maybe I'll look
into changing it. Until then, since it has been like this for a year or
so, I don't see any urgency. We have other problems to deal with for
now.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -