Jiang Xin <worldhello....@gmail.com> writes:

> 2013/9/18 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>:
>>> +     if (!is_dir_sep(*path) || !is_dir_sep(*(path+1)) || 
>>> is_dir_sep(*(path+2)))
>>> +             return 0;
>> If path[1] == '\0', it would be !is_dir_sep() and we end up
>> inspecting past the end of the string?
> The funciton "is_unc_path" will return false (0), if path is
> "", "/", "//", "///three/slashes/", or "/usr/local".
> So the problem is ?

If path[1] == '\0' (e.g. path="/"), !is_dir_sep(path[1]) is true,
not false (as I misread earlier), so we hit an early return and will
not peek path[2].  So no problem.  Sorry for the noise.

But I agree with J6t and Torsten in near-by thread that the simpler
one that does not worry about // should be done as a separate patch
and //, if we decide to do it, should build on top.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to