Message-ID: <36018A7A.4DECD32F@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 22:17:30 +0000
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
Organization: none provided
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: snapshot 980907
References: <199809171350 DOT JAA02993 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

DJ Delorie wrote :
> 
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/1998/07/30/13:08:14
> 
> This one doesn't apply.

If this mean, that you don't accept it (or I have misunderstood your
answer), then please run the following test program and decide, if
the reported bug is a bug or not (check it with malloc.o and bsdmallo.o
as the malloc object files different)

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
  char *tmp = malloc(12);
  fprintf(stderr, "%08x ", (unsigned)tmp);
  tmp = (char*)realloc(tmp, 17);
  fprintf(stderr, "%08x\n if the second is the same as the first, "
                  "we have a bug! :-(\n", (unsigned)tmp);
  return 0;
}

> 
> > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/1998/08/17/18:43:34
> 
> I applied this one, but I remember there was a lot of discussion about
> this one.  Did we decide it was right?

I don't know what the final result of the discussion was, but when I
remember
correct, most of the discussion was about the behaviour of strncpy and
not about the patch itself, probably because nobody could see there a
mistake :-)

Robert