In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roman Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not too sure if this is necessary but it seems logical to get things
> into charsets our compilers can handle. Hopefully this is the correct
> approach . . . . also this should NULL terminate in the event that
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Roman Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> # >+cstring[s->buflen + 1] = 0;
> good grief
>
> # >
> #
> # This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
> # but this certainly doesn't do it.
>
> shouldnt cstring[s->bufused +
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
# >+cstring[s->buflen + 1] = 0;
good grief
# >
#
# This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
# but this certainly doesn't do it.
shouldnt cstring[s->bufused +1] = \0
to keep us from clobbering the last char? or will st
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
# This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
# but this certainly doesn't do it.
I see now, I dont know what the hell I was thinking on that part, the
logic was correct to begin with. what about the transcoding though wouldn
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Roman Hunt wrote:
> Ehlo:
> I'm not too sure if this is necessary but it seems logical to get things
> into charsets our compilers can handle. Hopefully this is the correct
> approach . . . . also this should NULL terminate in the event that the
> entire buffer had not ye
