Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:08:15 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2950-Tue10Jul2001220813+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3B4B0C19.13655.81973B@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: glob buffer overflow fix
References: <3B4A416B DOT 14717 DOT 344112 AT localhost> <3B4B0C19 DOT 13655 DOT 81973B AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:07:21 -0400
> 
> > Perhaps we should add a test against PATHBUF_LEN right here in `glob',
> > even before you start expanding.
> 
> But would adding a test here be as reliable?

I don't know.  If you think that test might reject arguments which
otherwise would have passed the other test, then mine was a bad idea.