On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Roland Mainz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Roland Mainz <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:29 AM, ольга крыжановская >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> [snip] >>> Glenn, the patch is still missing in ast-ksh. It would help with >>> valgrind, and other instrumentation tools, because they can intercept >>> the libc function, and then validate whether source and destination >>> constitute valid memory areas, with out overlap. >> >> Attached (as "astksh_stpcpy.diff") is the updated patch to add >> |stpcpy()|/|stpncpy()| support to ast-ksh.2013-07-19's libast... risk >> should be very very low except for theoretical build issues... >> >> * Notes: >> - Now replaces |strcopy()|'s core. I've refrained from any cleanup to >> move existing |strcopy()| over to |stpcpy()| to keep the patch >> small... once this patch is accepted I do a "ast-open"-wide sweep and >> some more cleanup anyway (e.g. there is still some leftover repeated >> |strcat();strcat()| usage etc.) > > *GRUMPF* ... I ran afoul the lack of |stpncpy()| AGAIN... please... > it's getting frustrating for me...
Do you seriously believe either David or Glenn care? Typically if project leads act that way then you can submit the patch over and over again, but that doesn't make them less ignore you. I think a lot of people here have given up with ast (or its stepchild uwin) because contributions aren't welcome. Josh _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
