Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:42:25 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Leonid Pauzner <uue AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: libc' getenv optimization (patch3)
In-Reply-To:	<2.7.9.LL4Z.H4NNAK@pauzner.dnttm.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021028074013.9027A-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 Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Leonid Pauzner wrote:

> > Also, IIRC, functions from dosexec.c bypass `getenv' and `putenv',
> > and poke environ[] directly.
> use  grep -r

??? I meant to ask whether you tested your code with programs that call 
functions from dosexec.c, since they poke environ[].

> >> My hash table is only used in `getenv', and is resynced inside getenv.
> 
> > What about `putenv' and `setenv'?
> only getenv. (putenv left unchanged).

So after a call to `putenv', environ[] and hash_env[] are out of sync?

- Raw text -