Re: [patch] security(8) and spamd blacklist

2017-06-29 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch] security(8) and spamd blacklist

2017-06-29 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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:\

Re: [patch] return instead of exit(3) in src/bin/

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: usage functions above the main ones

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[frit...@alokat.org: Re: [patch] lpr atoi -> strtonum]

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
- Forwarded message from Fritjof Bornebusch <frit...@alokat.org> - Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:00:58 +0200 From: Fritjof Bornebusch <frit...@alokat.org> To: Michael Reed <m.r...@mykolab.com> Cc: tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] lpr atoi -> strtonum On Fri, Sep 2

Re: [patch]rcs: mark unlink as (void)

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]apmd ? sign

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]diff: uninitialized values

2015-11-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 initialize

Re: [patch] lpr atoi -> strtonum

2015-09-26 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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).

[patch] lpr style

2015-09-25 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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"

[patch] lpr atoi -> strtonum

2015-09-25 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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:

Re: [patch]diff: uninitialized values

2015-09-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 initialize

Re: [patch]rcs: mark unlink as (void)

2015-09-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: usage functions above the main ones

2015-09-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch] return instead of exit(3) in src/bin/

2015-09-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 *m

Re: [patch] return instead of exit(3) in src/bin/

2015-08-31 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: mark unlink as (void)

2015-06-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 *(void)* as well. Regards

Re: [patch]rcs: usage functions above the main ones

2015-06-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 the *main* function. This patch makes it more

Re: [patch]rcs: rlog manpage typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +0200, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote: Hi, El 18/6/2015 22:46, Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org escribiA^3: Hi tech@, *logins is omitted* sounds a little strange, doesn't it? logins as a keyword? Yes, but if you read

[patch]rcs: merge typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: ci manpage typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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'd have the comma. but many wouldn;t, and it's

[patch]rcs: ci manpage typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]rcs: rlog manpage typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 -

Re: [patch]rcs: rlog manpage typo

2015-06-18 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 you're thinking of logins as being the plural of login

[patch]diff: xstrdup wrappes strdup(3)

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]diff: uninitialized values

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ---

Re: [patch]diff: uninitialized values

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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. - warning: 'edp1' may

[patch]file: xstrdup just wrappes strdup(3)

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]ssh: xstrdup wrappes strdup(3)

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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. This one should do the trick. Index: xmalloc.c === RCS file

[patch]rcs: no null check before free(3)

2015-06-17 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]rcs: mark unlink as (void)

2015-06-15 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ===

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-06-15 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 +++

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-06-15 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 operating

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-06-14 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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, so there is no need to call xmalloc

[patch]rcs: usage functions above the main ones

2015-06-14 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-13 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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, 2015 at 12:43:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote

[patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-12 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 wrappes

[patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-12 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-06-10 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 Use err() instead of errx(), so errno

Re: [patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-05-20 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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. Regards, --F. Index

Re: [patch]apmd ? sign

2015-05-20 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 frit...@alokat.org wrote: Hi, for what is the ? sign for? fallthrough to usage() But why is this necessary, haven't seen this in other deamons? BTW: isn't

[patch]apmd ? sign

2015-05-20 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]rcs: xstrdup just wrappes strdup

2015-05-19 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ---

Re: [patch]sudo: punctuation fixes

2015-02-25 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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. fritjof Index: ins_csops.h === RCS file: /cvs

[patch] siphash static functions

2015-01-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch] remove atoi(3) from keynote

2015-01-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ---

[patch]sudo: punctuation fixes

2014-12-24 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ---

[patch]rcs: correct error message after renaming realloc

2014-12-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[patch]rcs: comment typo

2014-11-29 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]rcs: comment typo

2014-11-29 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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, thank you. pgpMkIwf4S_cz.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [patch]rcs: comment typo

2014-11-29 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 the right term when rferring to chars

Re: [Patch]rcs: use rcsnum_cmp

2014-11-28 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 original behavior: $ co -r1.2 foo.txt,v

[Patch]rcs: use rcsnum_cmp

2014-11-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[PATCH]rcs: write usage function pointer always the same way

2014-11-20 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 ---

[patch]rcs: memcmp against 0

2014-10-13 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
+0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: 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

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 things

Re: [patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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: Fritjof, have you let

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 fritjof Index: ci.c

Re: [Patch] use exit() directly in usage()

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 Bornebusch wrote: Hi, Hi

[patch]lock and unlock like GnuRCS

2014-10-01 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[Patch] avoid typecast

2014-09-27 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [Patch]openrcs: atoi to strtonum

2014-09-26 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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, while strtonum() does. Did you verify

[Patch]openrcs: atoi to strtonum

2014-09-24 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 -

Re: [PATCH] rcs: don't use lock and unlock in the same command

2014-08-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 unlocked $ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt RCS

Re: [PATCH]unnecessary typecast in rcs xmalloc

2014-08-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/xmalloc.c,v retrieving

Re: [PATCH]unused NULL check before calling free

2014-08-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 intention is clearly to check for it; otherwise

Re: [PATCH] Better overflow handling in rcstime.c

2014-08-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rcstime.c,v retrieving

Re: [PATCH]delete xfree() from sndiod

2014-08-16 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 Index: abuf.c

[PATCH]delete xfree() from sndiod

2014-08-03 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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:

[PATCH] rcs: don't use lock and unlock in the same command

2014-08-03 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [PATCH]unused NULL check before calling free

2014-08-02 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 rationale

Re: [PATCH] Better overflow handling in rcstime.c

2014-08-02 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 I don't like implicit casts

Re: [PATCH]unused NULL check before calling free

2014-07-31 Thread 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. fritjof Index: xmalloc.c

Re: [PATCH]unused NULL check before calling free

2014-07-31 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:32:07AM -0400, sven falempin wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org 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 wrote: Hi tech

[PATCH]unused NULL check before calling free

2014-07-30 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 -

[PATCH] Better overflow handling in rcstime.c

2014-07-30 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 -

[PATCH]unnecessary typecast in rcs xmalloc

2014-07-30 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 -

Re: [PATCH]unnecessary return in arc4random

2014-05-31 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 Index: arc4random.c

[PATCH]unnecessary return in arc4random

2014-05-22 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[PATCH] rcs regression tests

2014-05-14 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

[PATCH] rcs: free pointer

2014-05-10 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-09 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 frit...@alokat.org writes: [...] Does no one want to check the diff and give me some feedback? Regardless

Re: [PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-09 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:35:11PM -0400, Kenneth Westerback wrote: On 9 May 2014 11:47, Kenneth Westerback kwesterb...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 May 2014 11:41, Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org wrote: On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:59:03PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: On Wed, May 07, 2014

Re: [PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-09 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:01:52PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote: Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org writes: Hi tech, Hi, if I compile rcs, gcc prints a few warnings like this: - comparison between signed and unsigned - signed and unsigned type in conditional

Re: [PATCH] rcs merge

2014-05-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
consistent what format is used, too. fritjof 2014-05-08 0:13 GMT+02:00 Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org: Hi tech, I think labels = 3 is more readable than 3 = labels. fritjof Index: merge.c === RCS file: /cvs/src

[PATCH] rcs: no way to go, after usage was called

2014-05-08 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 typecasts are at the correct place

Re: [PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:05:35PM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote: Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org 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: Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22

[PATCH] rcs void casts

2014-05-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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

Re: [PATCH] rcs void casts

2014-05-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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? No, they are not necessary. I've

[PATCH] rcs merge

2014-05-07 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 - 1.7

[PATCH] rcs stored values never read

2014-05-06 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech, there are some never read values in rcs. fritjof Index: co.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/co.c,v retrieving revision 1.117 diff -u -p -r1.117 co.c --- co.c16 Apr 2013 20:24:45 - 1.117 +++ co.c

[PATCH] comparison between signed and unsigned in rcs

2014-05-06 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
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 typecasts are at the correct place, but these diffs removes the warnings. fritjof Index: buf.c

[PATCH] mail assignment never read

2014-04-24 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech, this assignment is never read. Fritjof Index: collect.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/mail/collect.c,v retrieving revision 1.34 diff -u -p -r1.34 collect.c --- collect.c 17 Jan 2014 18:42:30 - 1.34 +++

[patch] cvs some values never read

2014-04-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech, there are some set operations, which are never read. Fritjof Index: rcsparse.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/cvs/rcsparse.c,v retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -p -r1.7 rcsparse.c --- rcsparse.c 3 Jun 2013 17:04:35 -

Re: [patch] cvs some values never read

2014-04-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
* Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org [2014-04-23 19:30]: there are some set operations, which are never read. RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/cvs/rcsparse.c,v guess we need to decide what to do with opencvs really. either

Re: [patch] cvs some values never read

2014-04-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
* Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org [2014-04-23 20:15]: * Fritjof Bornebusch frit...@alokat.org [2014-04-23 19:30]: there are some set operations, which are never read. RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/cvs

[PATCH] ssh: variables never read

2014-04-23 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech, there are some unread set operations in the ssh code. Fritjof Index: clientloop.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/clientloop.c,v retrieving revision 1.258 diff -u -p -r1.258 clientloop.c --- clientloop.c2 Feb

  1   2   >