This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch/rebase] Add a rebase database to keep track of DLL addresses


On Jul 24 15:34, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/24/2011 3:16 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 24 14:09, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> but read is returning 0
> > 
> > Ouch, ouch, ouch!  Why didn't you say that in your first mail?
> 
> 'Cause I didn't know, then, FOR SURE, that it was actually returning 0.
>  All I knew was that (a) it *wasn't* returning negative, and (b) no
> bytes were being written into array[i].name.  That's pretty strong
> circumstantial evidence that read() was returning zero...but not PROOF.
> 
> Now I know, because I removed O_BINARY, and rearranged the 'if'
> statement so I could explicitly check the actual value that read() is
> returning in this case.
> 
> >  Ignoring
> > 0 == EOF is a blatant bug in my loader code.
> > 
> > Wait with your patch, please.  First I'll add the early-EOF handling.
> 
> Oops.  Well, adapting to whatever you change with regards to read() is
> easy, compared to all the /other/ changes I had to make to the patch in
> response to the review comments.  So, go ahead with whatever you need to
> do, and I'll publish round 3.

I applied my patch.  I don't think your patch is affected much.  See
my other mail.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]