"Bo Borgerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alas, that patch assumes C99, and we can't assume that quite yet. > > Also, it mishandles nmerge values that are "too large" (you'll get > > core dumps or worse on many hosts). That being said, it might be > > worth adding an option like that (it's a bit specialized, but it's a > > big performance win in some cases). > > > > Ah, yes I see. Thanks for the feedback. Please allow me to take > another stab at this. > > For the first issue: I've replaced the variable-length arrays in > mergefps with pointers xnmalloc'd storage. > > For the second: I've introduced a small dedicated function for > validating and applying changes to nmerge. In addition to checking > bounds I also added a check for sort_size to ensure that it's still at > least MIN_SORT_SIZE after an nmerge adjustment.
Re those guidelines, I've just added this paragraph ;-) Add documentation ================= If you add a feature or change some user-visible aspect of a program, document it. If you add an option, document it both in --help output (i.e., in the usage function that generates the --help output) and in doc/coreutils.texi. The man pages are generated from --help output, so you shouldn't need to change anything under man/. User-visible changes are usually documented in NEWS, too. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
