On 13 February 2015 at 09:12, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:06 +0000 > Ralph Eastwood <tcmreastw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Ralph, > >> Attached is another patch for uudecode which I think works properly >> now *cross fingers*. > > can we trust this code? Don't send a patch (or three patches) when you > don't know if it is going to work. > Did you thoroughly test it without issues? > > Cheers > > FRIGN > > -- > FRIGN <d...@frign.de> >
Hey FRIGN, Yeah I am reasonably confident after the last patch. Uuencode always worked but I had some issues on the uudecode in corner cases (Didn't flush the decoded stream in the right places). One of the three patches just removed some of the cruft I left behind during testing uuencode. I manage to test uudecode on a number of inputs now with some large files and different length streams to makes sure each code path was tested. For code like this - should we have some regression testing (perhaps in a separate testing base), to verify POSIX compatibility? For instance, sbase ls still has a bug with directory listing output. Cheers, Ralph -- Tai Chi Minh Ralph Eastwood tcmreastw...@gmail.com
