Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:48:12 +0000 From: Neil Booth To: Werner Tuchan , neil@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: bootstrap/5149: gcc-20011217 reads beyond EOF on cygwin Message-ID: <20011221184812.A13959@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> References: <20011220002004.23509.qmail@sources.redhat.com> <000701c18964$fad2d2e0$fb4d0ed4@softron.de> <20011220183323.B3065@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <002b01c18a2d$aeb7d850$fb4d0ed4@softron.de> <20011221172007.GA14954@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011221172007.GA14954@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Christopher Faylor wrote:- > Can I ask why we'd be reading beyond EOF? Is it guaranteed that bytes beyond > EOF will be zero on UNIX? This was discussed in September (see thread in gcc@ entitled "Bumming cycles out of parse_identifier"). It was decided that all known current Unix implementations have zeros until the next page boundary. Assuming EOF is indicated by a NUL is used as a lexer optimization. Neil. -- 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/