> I've pushed your original patch (with some comment-tweaking).
> It seems unlikely to break anything.
Thanks!
Quentin Rameau writes:
> Another better way, I think, to fix this is to check for optopt
> instead, which would be set to the option which caused the error, which
> if empty means there isn't an error.
Meh. We don't use optopt at all today, and I don't especially want
to start doing so. A patch
> Another better way, I think, to fix this is to check for optopt
> instead, which would be set to the option which caused the error, which
> if empty means there isn't an error.
>
> Patch attached.
Actually OpenBSD seems to set optopt to '?' by default, so the updated
attached patch ensure we st
> > “If the option was the last character in the string pointed to by an
> > element of argv, then optarg shall contain the next element of argv,
> > and optind shall be incremented by 2. If the resulting value of optind
> > is greater than argc, this indicates a missing option-argument, and
> > ge
Quentin Rameau writes:
>> Um ... so how would control get there with optind too large?
> That's from the getopt specification[0]:
> “If the option was the last character in the string pointed to by an
> element of argv, then optarg shall contain the next element of argv,
> and optind shall be in
> > Um ... so how would control get there with optind too large?
Sorry, I missed the simple explanation for that:
As option 'h' is missing an argument, getopt(_long) returns the
character '?' which is switched on through variable c, and the program
jumps to the '?' case handling.
Hello Tom,
> > When passing an argument option with a missing argument, strcmp
> > would be called with the argv terminating NULL.
>
> Um ... so how would control get there with optind too large?
That's from the getopt specification[0]:
“If the option was the last character in the string poin
Quentin Rameau writes:
> When passing an argument option with a missing argument, strcmp would
> be called with the argv terminating NULL.
Um ... so how would control get there with optind too large?
What test case/platform are you considering?
(There really shouldn't be *any* case where getopt
