Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Ralf Habacker" <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>
To:	"Jason Tishler" <jason AT tishler DOT net>
Cc:	"cygwin" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: [ITP] rebase
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:42:40 +0100
Message-ID:	<000101c2d42e$f1bee980$0a1c440a@BRAMSCHE>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<20030212132345.GF2160@tishler.net>

> >
> > > wasn't tight enough.
> > >
> > > My version:
> > >
> > >     (char *)&relocp->SizeOfBlock < (char *)relocs + size
> > >
> > > seems to be.
> > >
> >
> > What was the problem with this guard:
>
> To which guard are you referring?  Mine or yours?
>
> > Does it not fix the last entry of a relocation block ?
>
> I'm concerned that my guard might have an off-by-one error and miss the
> last entry.  Is there an easy way to check this?

I have compared this with, what objdump says and it seems there is no
difference.
I've checked in your changes additional with some debug informations printings
in Relocations::check()

Regards
Ralf






--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -