Hi Christian, On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote: > Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch. > > -- > Regards, > Christian >
> From 9da405da78e92dc8263239e25365bee3167f185e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de> > Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:42:50 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks > > Don't use ULONG_MAX from <limits.h> because ULONG is not necessarily > 'unsigned long'. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de> > --- > peflags.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c > index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644 > --- a/peflags.c > +++ b/peflags.c > @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ > #include <unistd.h> > #include <getopt.h> > #include <errno.h> > -#include <limits.h> > #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__) > #include <sys/mman.h> > #endif > @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name, > || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL > /* Just a ULONG value */ > || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong > - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX)) > + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL)) What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead? Corinna
