From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Feb  7 17:39:17 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07486
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:39:17 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from taliesin.cs.ucla.edu (Taliesin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.96.166])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA07481
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:39:15 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu)
Received: (qmail 4638 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1998 01:39:12 -0000
Received: from mordred.cs.ucla.edu (131.179.48.34)
  by taliesin.cs.ucla.edu with SMTP; 8 Feb 1998 01:39:12 -0000
Received: from mordred.cs.ucla.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mordred.cs.ucla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00299;
	Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:39:12 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from scottm@mordred.cs.ucla.edu)
Message-Id: <199802080139.RAA00299@mordred.cs.ucla.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97
To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
cc: scottm@CS.UCLA.EDU, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs bug (and fix) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:21:24 PST."
             <199802071921.LAA18068@austin.polstra.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:39:11 -0800
From: Scott Michel <scottm@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe current"

> In article <199802062246.OAA03856@mordred.cs.ucla.edu>,
> Scott Michel  <scottm@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> > This one's been driving me batshit for the last couple of days. I'm
> > surprised no one else has encountered it yet.
> > 
> > Line 6016 in /usr/src/contrib/cvs/src/rcs.c needs to be changed from
> > 
> >     if (n == EOF)
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >     if (n == EOF || num == NULL)  
> > 
> > Otherwise you get spurious assert's in findnode() a little later on.
> 
> It looks like only an invalid RCS file could cause that to happen.
> (Which of course doesn't make it any less of a bug.)  Is that right?

For some reason, mine has an extra blank line at the end of the
revision file. Other than that, it's perfectly valid.

> The fix doesn't look quite right to me.  A revision number was
> expected, but something else (not EOF) was found instead.  Shouldn't
> it report an error?
> 
> How about something like this:
> 
>     if (n == EOF)
>     {
>         /* If n == EOF and num == NULL, it means we reached EOF
>            naturally.  That's fine. */
>         if (num == NULL)
>             return NULL;
>         else
>             error (1, 0, "%s: unexpected EOF", rcs->path);
>     }   
>     else if (num == NULL)
> 	error (1, 0, "%s: file contains invalid revision number", rcs->path);

No. I'd make this a warning. Otherwise, some naive Linux-wannabe who
encounters this will generate equivalent e-mail.


-scooter