> --- 12638,12664 ----
> if (n == FALSE)
> {
> if (STRNICMP(name, "patch", 5) == 0)
> ! {
> ! if (name[5] == '-'
> ! && STRLEN(name) > 11
> ! && vim_isdigit(name[6])
> ! && vim_isdigit(name[8])
> ! && vim_isdigit(name[10]))
> ! {
> ! int major = atoi((char *)name + 6);
> ! int minor = atoi((char *)name + 8);
> ! int patch = atoi((char *)name + 10);
> !
> ! /* Expect "patch-9.9.01234". */
> ! n = (major < VIM_VERSION_MAJOR
> ! || (major == VIM_VERSION_MAJOR
> ! && (minor < VIM_VERSION_MINOR
> ! || (minor == VIM_VERSION_MINOR
> ! && patch <= highest_patch()))));
If I am not mistaking, this (using highest_patch()) means not that patch was
actually included, but that last included patch number is greater then or equal
to requested one. This is a useless check: checking against the patch number
usually means missing ability to use has()/exists() to check for feature
existence, so on some distributions (e.g. CentOS) that like to include only a
subset of patches (i.e. only patches that fix bugs) using
(has('patch-7.4.100')) will falsely report 1 while actually patch 100 is
missing (though 101 was included), but `has('patch100')` will report that it is
missing.
I think here `has_patch()` should be used, not highest_patch().
> ! }
> ! else
> ! n = has_patch(atoi((char *)name + 5));
> ! }
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
