I confirmed an additional byte isn't required at the top of an input
buffer. However, I also confirmed an additional byte is required at the
end of the input buffer. dfaexec will temporarily replace it with
eolbyte as sentinel.
Sorry, I changed the patch again.
From 71bc6a65dcc0f42cb5b2c311ac2d5
Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
However, I also confirmed an additional byte is required at the
end of the input buffer. dfaexec will temporarily replace it with
eolbyte as sentinel.
Thanks, I pushed that after adjusting the checkin log message. I will try to
get to the other patches in this bug repo
find_pred function is return an address to NULL pointer, but I think we
don't hope it. So fix it.
BTW, it could never happen, as the syntax is checked in regex prior to it.
From ff7e6f5994b8f90aaeb85da6b31569f01f97f2f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norihiro Tanaka
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 12:09:24
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
>>
>> However, I also confirmed an additional byte is required at the
>> end of the input buffer. dfaexec will temporarily replace it with
>> eolbyte as sentinel.
>
>
> Thanks, I pushed that after adjusting the checkin lo
Thanks for catching that. Obviously the patch should go in, but I'm mystified
as to why we need two bytes' worth of sentinels after the buffer. I suspect
there's another bug lurking in there, related to the bugs earlier in this report.
That is, the two-byte trailing sentinel seems to be relat