[Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps If I want to match the + character from the index, I need to write, e.g. ~Bc\\+\\+ (with two backslashes before the +). But from the pager, I need to search for: c\+\+ with a single backslash this time. -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Comment (by David Champion): {{{ * On 2007.05.07, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Mutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps > > If I want to match the + character from the index, I need to write, e.g

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Comment (by vinc17): Why is it parsed by the command parser in the index? Couldn't the same parser as in the pager be used? -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Comment (by David Champion): {{{ The regexp isn't parsed individually, it's the entire pattern that's parsed. So you can do things like: ~s 'a subject with a space in it' ~B match.*expression }}} -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Comment (by vinc17): This should be made clear in the manual. It currently suggests that there is the same parsing in the pager and in the index: {{{ 3.2. The Pager [...] /search for a regular expression (pattern)

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Changes (by brendan): * component: mutt => doc * milestone: => 1.6 -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Changes (by brendan): * owner: mutt-dev => brendan * status: new => assigned * milestone: => 1.6 Comment: I don't see the bug here. It looks like MAX(destlen - idx -pwnl - 1, 0) does the same thing your check is supposed to do. -- Ticket U

Re: [Mutt] #2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps

#2886: inconsistent use of backslash in regexps Comment (by vinc17): I also wonder if, when invoking the search command in the pager, "Search" should be replaced by "Search (regexp)" or "Search for regexp" (as usually a search/limit/... command expects a pattern). -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Comment (by raylai): {{{ $ cat mutt.c #include #include int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { size_t destlen = 256, pwnl = 3; int idx = 254; printf("%zu\n", (size_t)MAX(destlen - idx - pwnl - 1, 0)); return (0)

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Comment (by Thomas Roessler): {{{ On 2007-05-07 17:03:40 -, Mutt wrote: > printf("%zu\n", (size_t)MAX(destlen - idx - pwnl - 1, 0)); Woah. destlen-idx-pwnl-1 is evaluated as an unsigned, and therefore always >= 0. }}} -- Ticket UR

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Comment (by brendan): I see. I think this is a little clearer: `MAX((ssize_t)(destlen - idx - pwnl - 1), 0)` -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Comment (by raylai): Why would you want to call memmove with an out-of-bounds dest, even if the size is 0? Anyway, either fix is fine. -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Comment (by brendan): I don't particularly, but I prefer the readability. -- Ticket URL:

Re: [Mutt] #2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name

#2885: Buffer overflows in mutt_gecos_name Changes (by brendan): * status: assigned => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: (In [47d08903b79b]) Use signed arithmetic in mutt_gecos_name to avoid an overflow. Closes #2885. -- Ticket URL:

Re: change_folder_next patch

On Thursday, 03 May 2007 at 12:16, Alain Bench wrote: > Hello Nick, > > On Monday, April 30, 2007 at 15:57:20 +0100, N.J. Mann wrote: > > > I've left it bound to ',' for now, but... > > There is another argument against binding comma: Since ages, by > default comma is not bound. This fact i