At 07:19 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
> > > OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
> > > perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pai
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
> > OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
> > perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pair
> > within the perlhash structure, so we need to ensu
At 07:15 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
> OK, I think I've got it this time. The previous patch uncovered a bug in
> perlhash.pmc; index is actually the offset of a particular key pair
> within the perlhash structure, so we need to ensure that key->size is
> bigger than index.
This pa
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 06:39 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
> >
> > > Two separate bugs:
> > >
> > > 1. The index checks should use && and not ||, or else they'll always be
> > > true.
> > >
> > > 2. The check in
At 06:39 PM 1/9/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> > Two separate bugs:
> >
> > 1. The index checks should use && and not ||, or else they'll always be
> > true.
> >
> > 2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Better
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
> Two separate bugs:
>
> 1. The index checks should use && and not ||, or else they'll always be
> true.
>
> 2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
>
> Simon
>
Better hold off on applying this patch; it makes test 5 in perlhash.t
fa
Two separate bugs:
1. The index checks should use && and not ||, or else they'll always be
true.
2. The check in key_inc has an off-by-one error.
Simon
--- key.c.old Wed Jan 9 17:58:59 2002
+++ key.c Wed Jan 9 18:01:33 2002
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@
INTVAL key_element_type(struct
