From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:54:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: bug in gcc2952
Message-ID: <38C7E560.8538.CD4348@localhost>
References: <4F3174B207F AT HRZ1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000305101305.29735Z-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 5 Mar 2000, at 10:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote:
> 
> > !   if (!IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (*tooldir_prefix)
> > ! #ifdef HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM
> > !         /* Check for disk name on MS-DOS-based systems. */
> > !         && !(tooldir_prefix[1] == ':' && IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (tooldir_prefix[2]))
> > ! #endif
> > !      )
> 
> Is it correct to assume that the drive letter is always followed by a
> slash/backslash in this case?  Can you have "d:foo" or just "d:", for
> example?  (It's hard to say without seeing the context.)  If those are
> possible, then the above test should be augmented.
> 
> For that matter, is it safe to look at tooldir_prefix[1] and
> tooldir_prefix[2] without making sure that tooldir_prefix[] has enough
> characters in it?  What if tooldir_prefix[] is simply "/"?
> 

Perhaps it's Ok as gcc is looking whether tooldir_prefix is not an 
absolute path there (relative and absolute tooldir_prefixes are handled 
slightly differently). We should not treat d:foo or d: as absolute.

Maybe only I should add  'isalpha(tooldir_prefix[0])'  in condition...

Andris