On 3/12/2010 4:56 PM, Matheus Izvekov wrote: > There is some misunderstanding here. That code above is from the old > version of diff. > I just tested here, and under those conditions you mentioned, the new diff > works as expected, and the old one segfaults, just like you said. >
That matches my understanding. The patch was indeed for the old diff (which is why, as I said, I didn't think anyone would be interested in it). > Yes, that was intentional. I asked here on the list if anyone would be > bothered if that feature was removed, and no one seemed to care. Are you > just noticing this, or are you complaining about it? Do you need this? > Even though old diff used ctime for that, and gnu diff seems to use > something else with another format? > I may have joined the list after you asked, since I don't recall this. In any case, I don't really care strongly one way or the other -- my instinct would be to provide some kind of timestamp here. I always assumed it was mtime, but you often wouldn't notice a ctime vs mtime distinction in any case. > But I'm still bothered that some tests in > the suite are failing for you. Can you provide more details on that? > Not at the moment (I'm actually away this weekend, and just briefly checking email). I'll see if I can rebuild with 1.16.0 and provide more feedback sometime soon. >> The tail.c bug is pretty clearly wrong; I don't know why it isn't seen >> on other platforms. The fix is to guard the call to >> "xwrite(STDOUT_FILENO, buf + nread - nwrite, nwrite)" at >> coreutils/tail.c:244 with an "if (nwrite > 0)", since otherwise the >> third parameter of xwrite() can be negative. Consider count = 50, nread >> = 10 for the first read; the "nwrite -= (count - seen)" at line 232 will >> make nwrite (initialized to the value of nread) negative. >> > > Can you provide a test case for that? > The "tail.tests" testcase tests exactly this issue; it failed for us. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
