Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:03 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.1.8: Too large entry in termcap file
Message-ID: <20010619100303.D31373@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3B2E8402 DOT 4CB90B8D AT tuwien DOT ac DOT at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3B2E8402.4CB90B8D@tuwien.ac.at>; from Alois.Steindl+e325@tuwien.ac.at on Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:43:14AM +0200

On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:43:14AM +0200, Alois Steindl wrote:
>>On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:12:01PM +0200, Alois Steindl wrote:
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:29:36 -0400, Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat
>>>dot com> wrote:
>>>>Looking at the entry that is in termcap for linux, I don't see any way
>>>>around this.  I did compare it against the entry from Red Hat and I see
>>>>that they just squeak in under 1024.
>>>
>>>I get 1042 for linux and 1034 for cygwin
>>
>>In that case, linux is non-compliant too.  I believe that the 1024 is
>>supposed to include the null byte.
>Mathematically, 1042 is strictly larger than 1024.  cygwin returns 1038
>rather than 1034.

Sorry.  I misread your email.  I thought that you were providing new
information.  I said that the entry from Red Hat did not overflow.  I
thought that you had tested the Red Hat linux case and were providing
your findings.  I was mistaken.  You just thought it necessary to hammer
your point home again.

I misread 1042 as 1024.  I guess I'm a touch dyslexic.

>>If I see a bunch of people reporting this problem then maybe I'll look
>>into changing it.  Until then, since it has been like this for a year
>>or so, I don't see any urgency.  We have other problems to deal with
>>for now.
>>
>Certainly a funny and interesting method to deal with problems.  Wasn't
>the Ariane V failure caused by a similar attitude?  But I am quite
>sure: That problem will not bite _me_ again.  I had hoped to avoid that
>for other users also.

Too bad that your concern does not go as far as providing a patch.

As I mentioned, when I looked at the termcap entry, I did not see any
easy way to reduce it.  Since there are probably scores of programs
using this termcap entry, eliminating pieces from it is not something
that I would undertake lightly.  I could end up removing functionality
from programs which are relying on it.  These programs have already
apparently increased their buffer sizes.

Maybe we can stop talking about this now?  Or do you want to be outraged
some more?

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple