Follow-up Comment #24, bug #66675 (group groff): [comment #23 comment #23:] > The pushed version differs slightly from the comment #14 version: in comment > #14, the second parameter of valid_unicode_code_sequence() was changed from > "errbuf" to a null pointer. Is this difference intentional?
Yes. Since we're not going to report a diagnostic (an invalid Unicode special
character simply becomes a "regular" special character), there's no point
collecting text for a diagnostic. And on the _libgroff_ side, seeing a null
pointer, it avoids wasting time constructing one with _snprintf_(3).
But I overlooked merging that auxiliary aspect of the fix.
> In fact, by making it a null pointer, "errbuf" seems otherwise unused in the
> block in which it's declared, so if it's removed from the
> valid_unicode_code_sequence() call, the declaration can also go.
Right.
Will fix. Thanks!
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66675>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
