Marc Balmer said:
> It's one more hack that works around the real problem. We begin
> to add tests to make sure indices are not negative instead of solving
> the real problem, i.e. to make sure those indices are not negative in
> the first place.
>
> The patch is ok for me, as a temporary hack, but I think we should
> really go deeper into matters, find out why the indices are wrong and
> submit patches upstream.
Not really - the real problem is the order of the expression is
incorrect (it's too late to check !j once you've used it), and this
looks like a correct fix, doing what the author's logic intended.
OK to commit, alek
> >+--- src/conf.c.orig Sat Aug 27 22:54:54 2005
> >++++ src/conf.c Sat Aug 27 22:54:27 2005
> >+@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ gint get_conf(gchar *key, t_conf *conf)
> >+ for (i = 0; conf->file_content[i]; i++)
> >+ for (j = 0; conf->file_content[i][j]; j++)
> >+ if (conf->file_content[i][j] == COMMENT &&
> >+- (conf->file_content[i][j - 1] != '\\' || !j))
> >++ (!j || conf->file_content[i][j - 1] != '\\'))
> >+ {
> >+ conf->file_content[i][j] = '\0';
> >+ break;
