Hello, On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hello Pavel, > > On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 11:31, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > winsz.ws_col = winsz.ws_row = 0; > > if (ioctl (console_fd, TIOCGWINSZ, &winsz) < 0 > > || winsz.ws_col <= 0 || winsz.ws_row <= 0 > > || winsz.ws_col >= 256 || winsz.ws_row >= 256) > > die (); > > > > Do you think that this limitation is really needed ? > > It might well have to do with the allocation of a screen buffer or > something like that. More specifically this might have been a buffer > overflow fix or avoidance. Slang related yes, so the test might be > conditional (not sure how ncurses works). Well, currently the limit has been raised so it should be reflected here too. I think however that this check might be redundant since MC exits if it detects that the screen is larger than what SLang allows. > There are other places in the code where such a limitation is used. > Sadly the constants SLTT_MAX_SCREEN_COLS and _ROWS are not used > consistently throughout the code so we'll need to look through the code > to fix this consistently. I think those macros were introduced only recently in SLang but I might be wrong as well. Anyway, do you know of other places which have similiar checks ? _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel