On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com>
> wrote:
> > On the other hand, the tree *is* broken for some ports; I'd
> > prefer regressions to that. So, unless you're onto this, how do
> > you feel about me committing the posted patch and opening a PR
> > for the regressions?
>
> I committed
>
> Index: inquire.c
> ===================================================================
> --- inquire.c (revision 215337)
> +++ inquire.c (working copy)
> @@ -92,9 +92,9 @@ inquire_via_unit (st_parameter_inquire *
> else if (u->unit_number == options.stderr_unit)
> fstrcpy (iqp->name, iqp->name_len, "CONERR$", sizeof("CONERR$"));
> else
> - fstrcpy (iqp->name, iqp->name_len, u->file, u->file_len);
> + cf_strcpy (iqp->name, iqp->name_len, u->filename);
> #else
> - fstrcpy (iqp->name, iqp->name_len, u->file, u->file_len);
> + cf_strcpy (iqp->name, iqp->name_len, u->filename);
> #endif
> }
>
> as obvious (r215338).
(Bah, without the indentation fixed...)
'k so we'll track the regressions in a PR.
brgds, H-P
