Jiang Xin <worldhello....@gmail.com> writes: > 2013/9/18 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>: >>> + if (!is_dir_sep(*path) || !is_dir_sep(*(path+1)) || >>> is_dir_sep(*(path+2))) >>> + return 0; >> If path[1] == '\0', it would be !is_dir_sep() and we end up >> inspecting past the end of the string? > > The funciton "is_unc_path" will return false (0), if path is > "", "/", "//", "///three/slashes/", or "/usr/local". > So the problem is ?
If path[1] == '\0' (e.g. path="/"), !is_dir_sep(path[1]) is true, not false (as I misread earlier), so we hit an early return and will not peek path[2]. So no problem. Sorry for the noise. But I agree with J6t and Torsten in near-by thread that the simpler one that does not worry about // should be done as a separate patch and //, if we decide to do it, should build on top. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
