Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
You can reduce the example down to
extern char *strcpy(char *, const char *);
static void f(char *p, int n){
strcpy(p+n,);
}
void g(void){
f(0, 0);
}
compile with cc -O -Kinline
--On Wednesday, November 05, 2003 04:23:35 -0500 Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
You can reduce the example down to
extern char *strcpy(char *, const char *);
static void f(char *p, int n){
strcpy(p+n,);
}
Larry Rosenman writes:
I'll try and write the patch as you suggest.
Here's a patch as you suggested:
Isn't there a way to write a test that actually triggers the bug we're
trying to work around?
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
Larry Rosenman writes:
The problem is MOST people will **NOT** be able to get the fixed compiler
as it's on the Upgrade Pack path (PAY FOR), and **NOT** the Maintenance
Pack path (Free).
Why did they upgrade to the broken compiler in the first place, and why
doesn't SCO provide free fixes for
--On Sunday, November 02, 2003 23:05:21 +0100 Peter Eisentraut
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
The problem is MOST people will **NOT** be able to get the fixed compiler
as it's on the Upgrade Pack path (PAY FOR), and **NOT** the Maintenance
Pack path (Free).
Why did they
Larry Rosenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+# version check for the 7.1.3UP3 compiler (version 401200310):
+cat conftest.c __EOF__
+int main(int argc, char **argv)
+#if __SCO_VERSION__ =3D 401200310
+#error good compiler
+#else
+#error bad compiler
+#endif
+__EOF__
+ $CC conftest.c
