On 10/14/10 03:27, Pádraig Brady wrote: > So the test failed due to buffer overrun side effects?
I think so, yes, though I didn't investigate the details. On 10/14/10 02:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > With the following patch, compilation now fails on x86-based systems: > > sort.c: In function 'key_warnings': > sort.c:2335: error: negative width in bit-field > 'verify_error_if_negative_size__' > sort.c:2335: error: negative width in bit-field > 'verify_error_if_negative_size__' ... I assume this is against the unpatched sort.c. It's nice that it generates a diagnostic, but why is it generating duplicate diagnostics for each error? > BTW, for fyi-style patches like this, > please use [email protected] rather than bug-... Sorry about posting to bug-coreutils; I forgot that I was supposed to send it to coreutils. But even if I had remembered, I thought I was supposed to send patches to coreutils only if I had applied them, under the theory that the bug had already been fixed. So the real rule is: send patches to coreutils, and bug reports without patches to bug-coreutils?
