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 down. Do what -L -U does is better, imo.
>
Otto, so you appreciate a diff more like this one?
> -Otto
> >
> >
fritjof
Index: rcsprog.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rcsprog.c,v
retrieving revision 1.152
diff -u -p -r1.152 rcsprog.c
--- rcsprog.c 2 Oct 2014 06:23:15 -0000 1.152
+++ rcsprog.c 7 Oct 2014 12:53:10 -0000
@@ -235,9 +235,10 @@ rcs_main(int argc, char **argv)
lkmode = RCS_LOCK_STRICT;
break;
case 'l':
- /* XXX - Check with -u flag. */
+ if (rcsflags & RCSPROG_UFLAG)
+ warnx("-u overridden by -l");
lrev = rcs_optarg;
- rcsflags |= RCSPROG_LFLAG;
+ rcsflags = RCSPROG_LFLAG;
break;
case 'm':
if (logstr != NULL)
@@ -273,9 +274,10 @@ rcs_main(int argc, char **argv)
lkmode = RCS_LOCK_LOOSE;
break;
case 'u':
- /* XXX - Check with -l flag. */
+ if (rcsflags & RCSPROG_LFLAG)
+ warnx("-l overridden by -u");
urev = rcs_optarg;
- rcsflags |= RCSPROG_UFLAG;
+ rcsflags = RCSPROG_UFLAG;
break;
case 'V':
printf("%s\n", rcs_version);
