On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:19:59PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >At 08:06 PM 11/3/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:39:56PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:31:15PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> > >>> > I see. I'll create a patch. >>> >>> I started one already, must still compile and test. >>> Let me know if you proceed on your side. >> >>I have a patch ready and it seems to work fine(tm). Would you mind >>to give it a try on 95? Patch below. > >Turns out your patch is identical to mine (there is no need to >initialize protolen), and it worked on Win95, but a few things >trouble me in the reused code: > >1) The test "IsBadReadPtr (src->s_proto ..." will unduly fail on Win95 > if the 16 lsb of the first alias address are the 16 msb of a readable > memory address. I don't see why that's impossible. If would safer > to have a wincap entry, or (horror !), testing wincap.osname ().
In my testing, I never saw that, and we've never gotten a bug report to that effect, IIRC. I thought that the double check of this pointer made it pretty safe. >2) The test "&& !IsBadReadPtr (((pservent *) src) " should never fail > when it is reached, but should it fail, s_proto would be assigned an > invalid address and the program would crash. So if that test is kept > it should be part of a if .. else if .. (leaving s_proto NULL). >3) Strictly speaking, we should use IsBadStringPtr.. Yes, and strictly speaking, we should be checking all of the fields in this structure. I'll check in an "IsStringPtr" patch. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
