Two separate bugs:
1. The index checks should use and not ||, or else they'll always be
true.
2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
Simon
--- key.c.old Wed Jan 9 17:58:59 2002
+++ key.c Wed Jan 9 18:01:33 2002
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@
INTVAL key_element_type(struct
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
Two separate bugs:
1. The index checks should use and not ||, or else they'll always be
true.
2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
Simon
Better hold off on applying this patch; it makes test 5 in perlhash.t
fail (and
At 06:39 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
Two separate bugs:
1. The index checks should use and not ||, or else they'll always be
true.
2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
Simon
Better hold off on applying
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 06:39 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
Two separate bugs:
1. The index checks should use and not ||, or else they'll always be
true.
2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one
At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pair
within the perlhash structure, so we need to ensure that key-size is
bigger than index.
This patch
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pair
within the perlhash structure, so we need to ensure
At 07:19 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pair
