On 26 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Of course it does. Damn, I was tracking this bug myself, but I > thought my changes introduced them. :) I'll look into it. But > why the change in the first place???
It was my fault, sorry. I changed it because I had a crash where one of those steps failed, but it left the freed pointer in the array to be used later. I was hoping simply reordering things would prevent that, but I guess I missed a dependency. I submitted another patch that puts the order back the way it was and does the extra work in the cleanup instead. -- Paul Rupe "She smiled, in the end." p r u p e @ m y r e a l b o x . c o m | Oppose government police-ware on your PC! | Stop the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act! | <http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html>
