X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Received-SPF:	pass (google.com: domain of yselkowitz AT gmail DOT com designates 10.50.47.198 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.47.198;
Authentication-Results:	mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yselkowitz AT gmail DOT com designates 10.50.47.198 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yselkowitz AT gmail DOT com; dkim=pass header.i=yselkowitz AT gmail DOT com
Message-ID:	<1330422189.404.18.camel@YAAKOV04>
Subject:	Re: 'more' segment faults with latest cygwin1.dll (1.7.11)
From:	"Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:43:09 -0600
In-Reply-To:	<20120228081859.GA23052@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<CAK-n8j4+JwjgjYwWOkR9Y9zMd1xzKDwd9F7w55aMG23CSRf9Kw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120227195959 DOT GC7534 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1330384952 DOT 6720 DOT 20 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04> <20120228081859 DOT GA23052 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 09:18 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It's a bug in more, afaics.  In case of pressing 'n', the search function
> is called with a NULL buf argument.  However, the function calls
> strlen(buf) without checking buf for NULL.  The indentation at this
> point in the file looks like this  `if (strlen(buf) > 0) {' has been
> added as a kind of patch.

Yes, I had to patch more(1) to use regcomp/regexec instead of
re_comp/re_exec, which we don't have on Cygwin.  With your clarification
I should be able to fix it easily.


Yaakov



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -