Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:15:05 +0300 (IDT)
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: glob buffer overflow fix
In-Reply-To:	<3B4B42A3.4259.E8826@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010711081405.1314E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> > I don't know.  If you think that test might reject arguments which
> > otherwise would have passed the other test, then mine was a bad idea.
> 
> I don't know either. I can't fix what I don't understand, and I haven't 
> studied globbing or how it's supposed to work. I'm sure you know more about 
> the subject than I do. But I do know how to fix a buffer overrun, so that's 
> what my patch does. If you or anyone else can make the code even more 
> reliable, go for it.
> 
> My second revision:

I think this is fine to go in.  My suggestion was an attempt at 
optimization, so if we aren't sure it will work, let's not optimize.

- Raw text -