On 04/02/2013 02:43 PM, Will Newton wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Pirmin Walthert <in...@nappsoft.com> wrote:
That's ok for me (as the most important thing is not to have a regression in
the next release) but in fact the first of the following patches would have
been enough to fix the bug. However the second patch would have been the
preferred one, as there would be a potential memory-leak without it (in case
of m modifier and sc.width > 0).
Hi Pirmin,
Thanks for finding this bug. Both these patches look ok to me,
although I guess they should be resent with a Signed-off-by (e.g. from
git format-patch).
Hi Will,
I've just submitted two patches (I've separated the second version of
the two patches into two separate patches to address the two fixed bugs
separately).
The reason why I didn't create a git-patch at the first is the
following: sending just the proposed changes instead of a git-patch
takes less time. And as I'd already sent a longer patch two weeks ago to
address the same issue (after someone has asked me to do so because I'd
only sent a diff before) and nobody seems to have had a look at it, I
thought that it was not worth the time anyway ;)
Best regards,
Pirmin
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
