On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Karl Berry wrote:
> is anon/readonly cvs access (or snapshots) available for post-4.0
> development versions of the texinfo source?
>
> Sorry, no. I have been sent many useful patches but have not integrated
> them yet :(. I hope to do soon. The development versions will be
> announced/discussed on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list as
> usual, you're welcome to subscribe to that (at the usual -request
> address) so you'll know as soon as they are ...
alright.
i ask because i spent some time getting it working on BeOS, only to find
that some of the problems had already been addressed in patches sent to
this list.
any idea on how long it will be until a patched version of the source will
be available?
while i'm at it, i'd like to comment on the patch submitted by Per Mildner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on March 8, 2000. it looks like that thread was
never really finished (by looking at the archives).
i'd have to agree with Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in that "I'm
not sure we should rely on behavior of realloc.". It's a simple fix to
change:
while ((n = read (file, result + count, file_size)) > 0)
count += n;
if (0 < count && count < file_size)
result = xrealloc (result, count + 2);
else if (n == -1)
<<ERROR>>
-to-
while ((n = read (file, result + count, file_size)) > 0)
count += n;
if (count != file_size)
if (0 < count && count < file_size)
result = xrealloc (result, count + 2);
else if (n == -1)
<<ERROR>>
-or-
while ((n = read (file, result + count, file_size)) > 0)
count += n;
if (0 < count && count < file_size)
result = xrealloc (result, count + 2);
else if ((n == -1) && (count != file_size))
<<ERROR>>
it isn't a big deal in any case, but since here in the program we *know*
what we want the behaviour to be, we might as well not leave it up to
{x,}realloc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
moore.cx/dan
