Still another - $SRC/cmd/fmli/sys/expr.c:
static char expbuf[ESIZE];
void errxx();
int num;
extern char *braslist[], *braelist[], *loc2;
compile(p, expbuf, &expbuf[512], 0, errxx);
ESIZE is defined as 256 earlier in the file yet it references the 512th ele
On 03/ 4/10 10:22 AM, Albert Lee wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:22:09 -0800, Garrett D'Amore
wrote:
On 03/ 4/10 05:03 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Sorry for the long winding email but I am really thinking that the
header
data is nice to have around and still useful. Is there
Similarly, in $SRC/cmd/avs/dsw/iiadm.c there are several instances of
statements like:
io->shadow_vol[DSW_NAMELEN] = '\0';
shadow_vol is defined as being DSW_NAMELEN elements long so this statement is
overwriting the byte immediately after this array (for example
bitmap_vol[DSW_NAMELEN] follo
I'm using gcc 4.5 to build my Systemz code and am getting statement 10 flagged
as possibly out of bounds. The code is in
$SRC/cmd/abi/appcert/static_prof/static_prof.c around line 127:
01 bktno = (bktno + 1) % DEFBKTS;
02 for (i = bktno; i < DEFBKTS; i = (i + 1) % DEFBKTS) {
03 if (i == orig_
> On 03/ 4/10 05:03 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the long winding email but I am really thinking that the
>> header
>> data is nice to have around and still useful. Is there some easy way to
>> get that data back ( an awesome awk/sed/grep script ) or is it lost
>> forever?
>>
>>
>
> L
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:22:09 -0800, Garrett D'Amore
wrote:
> On 03/ 4/10 05:03 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the long winding email but I am really thinking that the
header
>> data is nice to have around and still useful. Is there some easy way
to
>> get that data back ( an awesome awk
On 03/ 4/10 05:03 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Sorry for the long winding email but I am really thinking that the header
data is nice to have around and still useful. Is there some easy way to
get that data back ( an awesome awk/sed/grep script ) or is it lost
forever?
Lost forever. But ult
> On 03/02/10 12:51, James Carlson wrote:
>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> Those tags were originally expanded by teamware/SCCS. With mercurial,
>>> they are useless as they contain the original patterns rather than the
>>> expanded forms. We've been removing them from source code as we update
>>>
