Date:	Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:06:21 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: bug in gcc2952
In-Reply-To:	<38C7E560.8538.CD4348@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000309180337.3167E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> > Is it correct to assume that the drive letter is always followed by a
> > slash/backslash in this case?  Can you have "d:foo" or just "d:", for
> > example?  (It's hard to say without seeing the context.)  If those are
> > possible, then the above test should be augmented.
> > 
> > For that matter, is it safe to look at tooldir_prefix[1] and
> > tooldir_prefix[2] without making sure that tooldir_prefix[] has enough
> > characters in it?  What if tooldir_prefix[] is simply "/"?
> > 
> 
> Perhaps it's Ok as gcc is looking whether tooldir_prefix is not an 
> absolute path there (relative and absolute tooldir_prefixes are handled 
> slightly differently). We should not treat d:foo or d: as absolute.

In my experience, it is safer to treat "d:foo" as absolute, not as 
relative.  In particular, if relative directories get prepended ./ or 
../, then it will fail with d:foo.

But I don't know if this is relevant to this case.

> Maybe only I should add  'isalpha(tooldir_prefix[0])'  in condition...

Probably.

- Raw text -