Am 31.07.2012 22:10, schrieb Tito: > On Tuesday 31 July 2012 18:08:15 walter harms wrote: >> compile tested, >> refactor correct_password.c to avoid one #if >> >> Signed-off-by: wharms <[email protected]> >> --- >> libbb/correct_password.c | 9 +++------ >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/libbb/correct_password.c b/libbb/correct_password.c >> index 6301589..7cabd33 100644 >> --- a/libbb/correct_password.c >> +++ b/libbb/correct_password.c >> @@ -41,12 +41,6 @@ int FAST_FUNC correct_password(const struct passwd *pw) >> char *unencrypted, *encrypted; >> const char *correct; >> int r; >> -#if ENABLE_FEATURE_SHADOWPASSWDS >> - /* Using _r function to avoid pulling in static buffers */ >> - struct spwd spw; >> - char buffer[256]; >> -#endif >> - >> /* fake salt. crypt() can choke otherwise. */ >> correct = "aa"; >> if (!pw) { >> @@ -55,7 +49,10 @@ int FAST_FUNC correct_password(const struct passwd *pw) >> } >> correct = pw->pw_passwd; >> #if ENABLE_FEATURE_SHADOWPASSWDS >> + /* Using _r function to avoid pulling in static buffers */ >> if ((correct[0] == 'x' || correct[0] == '*') && !correct[1]) { >> + struct spwd spw; >> + char buffer[256]; >> /* getspnam_r may return 0 yet set result to NULL. >> * At least glibc 2.4 does this. Be extra paranoid here. */ >> struct spwd *result = NULL; >> > > Hi, > I personally I'm not for mixing variable declarations and code, > I admit tough that in this case as it are just a few lines it could be ok. >
me too, actualy i was thinking to move that all into a special function but .... maybe you will ? re, wh _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
