Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/27480: [PATCH] fixes to jot(1) from OpenBSD Message-ID: <200105230340.f4N3e3M88553@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/27480; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/27480: [PATCH] fixes to jot(1) from OpenBSD Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:37:50 -0700 Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > The attached patch fixes some overflows in jot(1) and syncs up to > > OpenBSD a little. Significant changes include: > > > > - use getopt > > - de-register > > - fix overflows in -b and -w options; old behavior: > >... > > - use strlcpy and snprintf > > - check return values of the above > > - fix other gratuituos diffs to OpenBSD; not a complete sync, > > but better than nothing > > I would prefer to see the cleanups separately. Especially the getopt > changes which merge getargs() into main() and rename av to argv. Separately from what? The fixes for overflows? If so, I think it's appropriate to do it all in one commit; the overflows were fixed by strcpy -> strlcpy fixes. It would seem odd to fix two of the bugs in one commit, and the rest in another one a few minutes later. I understand that it's nice to separate bugfixes from cleanups, but in this case the bugs are fixed by cleaning up the code (more so than usual). Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105230340.f4N3e3M88553>