On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 07:23:52PM +0100, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> >This is what I initially thought, but no k+m+2 is still ok because we
> >check against < MAX_WD_LEN-1 not <= MAX_WD_LEN-1.
>
> I patched and recompiled, same warning as expected from the last posts.
Yes, the warning won't g
Le 06/02/2020 à 18:16, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:01:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:16:00PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:01:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:01:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > > I looked at the code an
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > I looked at the code and the buffer length seems properly handled in the
> > > reported
> > > lin
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:02:34PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > I looked at the code and the buffer length seems properly handled in the
> > reported
> > line (247) by the previous if clause.
> > What is not clear to me are two
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I looked at the code and the buffer length seems properly handled in the
> reported
> line (247) by the previous if clause.
> What is not clear to me are two following lines, which add m+1 chars while the
> check seem to properly handl
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I looked at the code and the buffer length seems properly handled in the
> reported
> line (247) by the previous if clause.
> What is not clear to me are two following lines, which add m+1 chars while the
> check seem to properly handl
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:52:29PM +0100, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> Le 31/01/2020 ? 20:46, Richard Kimberly Heck a écrit :
> >Public release of LyX version 2.3.4
> >===
> >
> >We are proud to announce the release of LyX 2.3.4. This is the fourth
> >maintenance re
Le 31/01/2020 à 20:46, Richard Kimberly Heck a écrit :
Public release of LyX version 2.3.4
===
We are proud to announce the release of LyX 2.3.4. This is the fourth
maintenance release in the 2.3.x series.
I got a working LyX installation where the 4 UserGuides
Public release of LyX version 2.3.4
===
We are proud to announce the release of LyX 2.3.4. This is the fourth
maintenance release in the 2.3.x series.
You can download LyX 2.3.4 from http://www.lyx.org/Download/.
LyX is a document processor that encourages an appr
11 matches
Mail list logo