On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:06:56PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2017/06/29 21:37, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > security(8) iterates over /var/mail and check is the files belong to the
> > owner of the same name. So far so good, but spamd.con
Hi,
security(8) iterates over /var/mail and check is the files belong to the
owner of the same name. So far so good, but spamd.conf.5 says:
override:\
:white:\
:method=file:\
:file=/var/mail/override.txt:
myblack:\
:black:\
:msg=/var/mail/myblackmsg.txt
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:19:28PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > *edp1* and *edp2* could be used uninitialized, if *goto closem;* is called.
> >
>
> Such initializers h
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:08:21PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping
>
> Index: apmd.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/apmd/apmd.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.75
> diff -u -p -r1.75 apmd.c
> --- ap
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> > statement instead of exit(3)
> > insid
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42:10AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Ping ...
>
> this seems fine to me
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:38:40PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > most of the tools implements the *usage* function above th
- Forwarded message from Fritjof Bornebusch -
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:00:58 +0200
From: Fritjof Bornebusch
To: Michael Reed
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [patch] lpr atoi -> strtonum
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:23:21PM -0400, Michael Reed wrote:
Ping
> Hi Fritjof,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:56:18PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping ...
> Hi tech@,
>
> mark this unlink(2) call as *(void)*, as there is no need to check the return
> value.
> This makes it more consistent to all other unlink(2) calls, since they are
> marked as
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:23:21PM -0400, Michael Reed wrote:
> Hi Fritjof,
>
Hi Michael,
> I left one comment inline.
>
thanks.
> On 09/25/15 08:18, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > change atoi(3) -> strtonum(3) in lpr(1) and lprm(1).
> >
Hi,
change atoi(3) -> strtonum(3) in lpr(1) and lprm(1).
lprm(1) avoids negative numbers to be the first argument by using getopt(3),
but supported values like 2.2.
--F.
Index: lpr/lpr.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/lpr/lpr/lpr.
Hi,
this diff changes the following:
- exit(3) to return at the end of main functions
- use /* NOTREACHED */ were it belongs according to style(9)
- lpc.c and lpd.c lack a return at the end of the main functions, as the main
loops exists the
program. I'm not sure if this is a "coders choise" a
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:56:18PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech@,
>
> mark this unlink(2) call as *(void)*, as there is no need to check the return
> value.
> This makes it more consistent to all other unlink(2) calls, since they are
> marked as *(void)* as
&g
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42:10AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>
> this seems fine to me
>
Ping ...
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:38:40PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > most of the tools implements the *usage* function above th
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:19:28PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > *edp1* and *edp2* could be used uninitialized, if *goto closem;* is called.
> >
>
> Such initializers h
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> > statement instead of exit(3)
> > inside the *main*
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> statement instead of exit(3)
> inside the *main* function, to let the stack protector do its work.
>
> This diff removes such calls
As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
statement instead of exit(3)
inside the *main* function, to let the stack protector do its work.
This diff removes such calls in all *src/bin/* tools, except those who already
use it.
I think I didn't miss a call and di
Hi,
just saw that cat's *main* function does never return even though there is a
return value,
exit(3) is called instead.
Is there any reason why or is it just historically, cause it's a bit confusing?
If exit(3) is always called, than why not changing the return value to *void*?
Other calls in
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:56:18PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping
> Hi tech@,
>
> mark this unlink(2) call as *(void)*, as there is no need to check the return
> value.
> This makes it more consistent to all other unlink(2) calls, since they are
> marked as
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42:10AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>
> this seems fine to me
>
Ping
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:38:40PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > most of the tools implements the *usage* function above th
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:57:13PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:44:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > *logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
> >
>
> it does, because in your head
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:48:23PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:33:53PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> >
> > isn't there a comma missing?
> >
>
> depends how you like your commas. if i were writing it, i'
What about this comma.
I saw a few manpages, having it at this location.
Regards,
--F.
Index: merge.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/merge.1,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 merge.1
--- merge.1 28 Oct 2010 15:08:50
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +0200, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote:
>Hi,
>
>El 18/6/2015 22:46, "Fritjof Bornebusch" escribiA^3:
>>
>> Hi tech@,
>>
>> *logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
>
>
Hi tech@,
*logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it?
Regards,
--F.
Index: rlog.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rlog.1,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 rlog.1
--- rlog.1 3 Sep 2010 11:09:29 -
Hi tech@,
isn't there a comma missing?
Regards,
--F.
Index: ci.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.1,v
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -p -r1.38 ci.1
--- ci.112 Aug 2013 14:19:53 - 1.38
+++ ci.118 Jun
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech@,
>
> *edp1* and *edp2* could be used uninitialized, if *goto closem;* is called.
>
Such initializers hiding a false positive, cause the compiler does not
understand this case can never happen.
-> warn
Hi tech@,
*edp1* and *edp2* could be used uninitialized, if *goto closem;* is called.
Regards,
--F.
Index: diffdir.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/diff/diffdir.c,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -p -r1.43 diffdir.c
--- diffdir.c
Hi tech@,
as requested by nicm@, xstrdup just wrappes strdup(3).
Regards,
--F.
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -p -r1.32 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 24 Apr 2015 01:36:0
Hi tech@,
as requested by nicm@, xstrdup calls strdup(3) now.
Regards,
--F.
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/diff/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 29 Apr 2015 04:00:25 -0
Hi tech@,
as requested by nicm@, xstrdup calls strdup(3) now.
Regards,
--F.
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/file/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 24 Apr 2015 16:24:11 -0
I don't think I'm the right person who should answer that question. ;)
Regards,
--F.
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the hint.
> > Thi
Hi tech@,
just saw I missed removing the null check before calling free(3), sorry.
Regards,
--F.
Index: ci.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.c,v
retrieving revision 1.220
diff -u -p -r1.220 ci.c
--- ci.c13 Jun 2015 20
Hi tech@,
mark this unlink(2) call as *(void)*, as there is no need to check the return
value.
This makes it more consistent to all other unlink(2) calls, since they are
marked as *(void)* as
well.
Regards,
--F.
Index: co.c
===
R
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:02:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > But I am not sure about this change. xmalloc.c came from ssh (and is
> > also used by file and diff). Would it be better to keep it in sync? How
> > portable is strdup?
>
> strdup is extremely portable.
>
> The last mainstream ope
Hi,
thanks for the hint.
This one should do the trick.
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -p -r1.9 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 13 Jun 2015 20:15:21 - 1.9
+++ xmal
Hi tech@,
most of the tools implements the *usage* function above the *main* function.
This patch makes it more consistent to these tools and where the different
*usage*
functions are implemented in rcs in general.
Any comments?
Regards,
--F.
Index: co.c
==
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:37:57PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:55:34AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > xstrdup just wrappes strdup,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:33:59AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Hi. You missed date.y:
>
> date.y: In function 'yyerror':
> date.y:497: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfree'
>
Ups, sorry.
That should do the trick.
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 201
> Hi tech@,
>
Without PGP / SMIME stuff, sorry.
> a couple of months ago I removed the if condition in the *xfree* function,
> but tedu@ suggested
> that it would be better to remove the *xfree* function entirely instead.
>
> If've seen there are *efree* functions in some tools, that just wra
Hi tech@,
a couple of months ago I removed the if condition in the *xfree* function, but
tedu@ suggested
that it would be better to remove the *xfree* function entirely instead.
If've seen there are *efree* functions in some tools, that just wrappes the
free(3) function call.
I'm not quite sure
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:55:34AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > xstrdup just wrappes strdup, so there is no need to call xmalloc and
> > strlcpy instead.
> >
>
Ping
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:35:03PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
>
> On May 20, 2015 5:08:21 PM GMT+02:00, Fritjof Bornebusch
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >for what is the ? sign for?
>
> fallthrough to usage()
>
But why is this necessary, haven'
Hi,
for what is the ? sign for?
Regards,
--F.
Index: apmd.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/apmd/apmd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.75
diff -u -p -r1.75 apmd.c
--- apmd.c 6 Feb 2015 08:16:50 - 1.75
+++ apmd.c 20 May
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> xstrdup just wrappes strdup, so there is no need to call xmalloc and
> strlcpy instead.
>
Use err() instead of errx(), so errno will be printed additionally.
Thanks to Tim.
> Regards,
> --F
Hi,
xstrdup just wrappes strdup, so there is no need to call xmalloc and
strlcpy instead.
Regards,
--F.
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -p -r1.8 xmalloc.c
--- xmallo
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 01:48:44PM +0100, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping ..
> Hi tech@,
>
> looks like there are some missing periods regarding the sudo "wrong
> password" messages.
>
> fritjo
Hi tech@,
this diff removes the atoi(3) call from keynote(1).
fritjof
Index: keynote-keygen.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libkeynote/keynote-keygen.c,v
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -p -r1.21 keynote-keygen.c
--- keynote-keygen.c
Hi tech@,
aren't these functions supposed to be static?
fritjof
Index: siphash.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/crypto/siphash.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 siphash.c
--- siphash.c 4 Nov 2014 03:01:14 - 1.1
+
Hi tech@,
looks like there are some missing periods regarding the sudo "wrong
password" messages.
fritjof
Index: ins_csops.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/sudo/ins_csops.h,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 ins_csops.h
---
fritjof
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 1 Dec 2014 21:58:46 - 1.6
+++ xmalloc.c 1 Dec 2014 23:59:50 -
@@ -60,7 +60,7
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 04:53:28PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 02:22:25PM +0100, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
>
> > Hi tech,
> >
> > it's NULL not NUL.
>
> You're touching a big controversy here. Many developers say that NUL is
>
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 05:27:00AM -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
>
> > it's NULL not NUL.
>
> Not in this case...
>
> NULL: is a pointer (usually 0)
> NUL: is a character ('\0')
>
Ahh I see, tha
Hi tech,
it's NULL not NUL.
fritjof
Index: diff3.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/diff3.c,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -p -r1.33 diff3.c
--- diff3.c 4 Mar 2012 04:05:15 - 1.33
+++ diff3.c 29 Nov 2014 13:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:14:50PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 05:19:16PM +0100, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
>
> > Hi tech,
> >
> > like the XXX comment says, rcsnum_cmp() can be used instead of a *for* loop.
> > The following shows the or
Hi tech,
like the XXX comment says, rcsnum_cmp() can be used instead of a *for* loop.
The following shows the original behavior:
$ co -r1.2 foo.txt,v
foo.txt,v --> foo.txt
revision 1.2
done
$ co -r1.1 foo.txt,v
foo.txt,v --> foo.txt
revision 1.1
done
$ co foo.txt,v
foo.txt,v --> foo.txt
Hi tech,
I think it's more readable if the usage() function pointer will always be
written the same way.
fritjof
Index: rlog.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rlog.c,v
retrieving revision 1.69
diff -u -p -r1.69 rlog.c
--- rlog.c
Hi,
it's better to compare memcmp against 0, for clarity.
fritjof
Index: diff3.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/diff3.c,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -p -r1.33 diff3.c
--- diff3.c 4 Mar 2012 04:05:15 - 1.33
+
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:11:28PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:56:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
&
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>
> > Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
> > Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
>
> That will only slow
t; > > posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when
> > > > > > mutually exclusive options are specified. does it make sense to
> > > > > > keep rcs consistent with that convention? also is a man page diff
> > > > > >
Hi tech,
according to scan-build(1) there are a few "never read" values.
fritjof
Index: co.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/co.c,v
retrieving revision 1.118
diff -u -p -r1.118 co.c
--- co.c2 Oct 2014 06:23:15 -
Hi tech,
the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is
used in the same command:
$ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
$ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
I've looked at GnuRCS and it has another way to h
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Looks good but you have missed out ident.c and rcsprog.c
>
Ups, sorry.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Fritjof Bor
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi,
> Hi,
>
> after usage() was called, there is no where you can go.
>
as suggested by otto@ and @nicm, the usage() functions are marked as
__dead.
> fritjof
>
fr
Hi,
after usage() was called, there is no where you can go.
fritjof
Index: ci.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.c,v
retrieving revision 1.217
diff -u -p -r1.217 ci.c
--- ci.c19 May 2014 19:42:24 - 1.217
+++ c
Hi,
there is no need for the typecast.
fritjof
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 7 Jun 2009 08:39:13 - 1.4
+++ xmalloc.c 2
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:31:17PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
Hi,
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:13:47PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I changed atoi to strtonum in order to avoid overflows.
>
> One concern: atoi() does not mind trailing stuff
Hi,
I changed atoi to strtonum in order to avoid overflows.
fritjof
Index: rcstime.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rcstime.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 rcstime.c
--- rcstime.c 29 Apr 2014 07:44:19 -
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 02:56:25PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping?
> Hi tech,
>
> during my search after other xfree() implementations, I saw that xfree() in
> sndiod is just a wrapper for free()
> without any other conditions, like NULL check.
>
> fritjof
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping?
> Hi tech,
>
> remove the atoi calls, in order to avoid overflows.
>
> fritjof
>
>
> Index: rcstime.c
> ===
> RCS file: /c
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping?
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:03:58AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Half true. :)
> >
> > The behavior is intended. I don't really know why they care about
> > freeing null, but the inte
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping?
> Hi tech,
>
> there is an unnecessary typecast in xmalloc.c of rcs.
>
> fritjof
>
>
> Index: xmalloc.c
> ===
> RCS file: /c
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 06:00:45PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping?
> Hi tech,
>
> the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is used in
> the
> same command:
>
> $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> 1.1 locked
> 1.1 u
Hi tech,
the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is used in
the
same command:
$ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
$ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
I've looked at GnuRCS and it has another way to
Hi tech,
during my search after other xfree() implementations, I saw that xfree() in
sndiod is just a wrapper for free()
without any other conditions, like NULL check.
fritjof
Index: abuf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/sndiod/ab
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:26:54PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > + tzone = (int)strtonum(h, -23, 23, &errstr);
>
> The explicit cast is not needed here.
>
That's maybe true, but
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:03:58AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Half true. :)
>
> The behavior is intended. I don't really know why they care about
> freeing null, but the intention is clearly to check for it; otherwise
> they would just call free() in the first place. (actually, i think the
> rati
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:32:07AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Fritjof Bornebusch
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:37:29PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:14:54PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:37:29PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:14:54PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > Hi tech,
> >
> > there is an unnecessary NULL check before calling free.
> >
> >
Hi tech,
there is an unnecessary typecast in xmalloc.c of rcs.
fritjof
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 7 Jun 2009 08:39:13 -
Hi tech,
remove the atoi calls, in order to avoid overflows.
fritjof
Index: rcstime.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rcstime.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 rcstime.c
--- rcstime.c 29 Apr 2014 07:44:19 -
Hi tech,
there is an unnecessary NULL check before calling free.
fritjof
Index: xmalloc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 xmalloc.c
--- xmalloc.c 7 Jun 2009 08:39:13 -
Any comments?
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:17:15PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech,
>
> there is no way you can go, after usage() was called, so dont't do it.
>
> fritjof
>
> Index: ci.c
> ===
Any feedback?
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:07:56AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech,
>
> I added some missing ; to the rlog out files, to make sure these tests don't
> fail.
>
>
> fritjof
>
Am I wrong?
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech,
>
> does this return makes any sense, because it's a void function and the return
> is at the end of the function.
>
> fritjof
&
Hi tech,
there is a dirty if statement in rlog.c, that checks if there is a valid
locker, state or writer and returns if not.
With help from jca - thanks for that - I removed the dirty if statement and
check for valid data in the sections.
I tested it and it behaves like the previous one with t
Hi tech,
does this return makes any sense, because it's a void function and the return
is at the end of the function.
fritjof
Index: arc4random.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/crypt/arc4random.c,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u
Hi tech,
I added some missing ; to the rlog out files, to make sure these tests don't
fail.
fritjof
Index: rlog-rflag2.out
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/regress/usr.bin/rcs/rlog-rflag2.out,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1 rlog
Hi tech,
if ci uses a user defined revision number the pointer was just set to NULL and
not freed correctly.
fritjof
Index: ci.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.c,v
retrieving revision 1.216
diff -u -p -r1.216 ci.c
--- ci.c
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:01:52PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote:
> Fritjof Bornebusch writes:
>
> > Hi tech,
>
> Hi,
>
> > if I compile rcs, gcc prints a few warnings like this:
> > - comparison between signed and unsigned
> > - signed and
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:35:11PM -0400, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> On 9 May 2014 11:47, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> > On 9 May 2014 11:41, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:59:03PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 07,
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:59:03PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:05:35PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote:
> > Fritjof Bornebusch writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Does no one want to check the diff and give me some
Hi tech,
there is no way you can go, after usage() was called, so dont't do it.
fritjof
Index: ci.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/ci.c,v
retrieving revision 1.216
diff -u -p -r1.216 ci.c
--- ci.c27 Oct 2013 18:31:24 -00
t parameter for comparisions.
So this diff makes it more consistent what format is used, too.
fritjof
>
>
> 2014-05-08 0:13 GMT+02:00 Fritjof Bornebusch :
>
> > Hi tech,
> >
> > I think "l
Hi tech,
I think "labels >= 3" is more readable than "3 <= labels".
fritjof
Index: merge.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/merge.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 merge.c
--- merge.c 23 Jul 2010 21:46:05 -
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:58:03PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Fritjof,
>
> Fritjof Bornebusch wrote on Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:32:05PM +0200:
>
> > there are a few void casts in rcs. But I have a question about that.
> > Are these casts really necessary?
>
&
Hi tech,
there are a few void casts in rcs. But I have a question about that.
Are these casts really necessary? I've read that the compiler warns, because of
unused variables.
But no compiler warnings about that on amd64.
That's why I just added this small diff, in order to get feedback if the c
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:05:35PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote:
> Fritjof Bornebusch writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Does no one want to check the diff and give me some feedback?
>
> Regardless of the content of your diff, the date of your mail was:
>
>
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:57:57PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> Hi tech,
>
> if I compile rcs, gcc prints a few warnings like this:
> - comparison between signed and unsigned
> - signed and unsigned type in conditional expression
>
> I'm not quite sure if the ty
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
