X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=45se2njzCgQvCNToH3nGlDxkfL7x2eG2SvQpsy6FUlU=;
        b=jOxPtg2Z+9pXc799b5snxCGKvVw4tA+OVgbfwOGvMpWw6aksjP7AzMahonD0jY8c/x
         hj1HaygZgQaM3Poqh391nNY41VhqpmQFimlaNt7nB0M6KL2hqgJS8mL7V+ndqIUpo8hb
         PXB7aKW6m90kxwe2ErLQUwH462PvcNaFhpRAZfmqdulCUotTQM3jCCgowlnO94jW1XGF
         W0mMk01BaQRxsp+puKkukiE3WJr5+Rjmo9GwZqZTtMcPoE3DJmTXABSl537sT0LLpIHA
         XZPdF9ndTijLSJfiakOwb0m967HebOOo1hhE/0nBm0NVUNzYZ+vnxIHVQHmT+lam5RGy
         RzMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.64.3 with SMTP id n3mr24142031oia.53.1442429928466; Wed,
 16 Sep 2015 11:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201509161849.t8GIne1A010595@envy.delorie.com>
References: <CAA2C=vCi88BYHh-yRXvtx8az13Y9wymqkjs93UJHx=qaZRPOGQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<cae6b037-4d08-4255-aa4f-d423a86a0d1c AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<83d1xi6ye1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vC4D8sm=3JMbLGAL-cPq7xAMZg32FCU0hezBrhkK9K9kA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<b27e79c8-8084-44f0-81c6-4487d88840c2 AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<201509161849 DOT t8GIne1A010595 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:58:48 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vBdCjAQHrtBdS7izxQ-jMCJV=fE2aDz0Bcq_Xf8Vi9pnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dlopen.c: make sure filename is not NULL and not empty
From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 9/16/15, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> When this has clarified we will need a new djdev205.zip,
>> etc... before we can proceed.
>
> I wouldn't trigger a 2.05 rebuild just for this.  It just moves error
> handling for a bad usage from one spot to another, it doesn't make
> anything broken suddenly work.  If anyone passed a NULL to popen

s/popen/dlopen/

> before, it failed.

It would segfault, but yes a failure nonetheless

>  If they pass NULL now, it fails.
>

Yes

> If we have *other* reasons to rebuild 2.05, we can include it then.
>