Re: [Nano-devel] 1.2.1?

[David Lawrence Ramsey]

--- Wouter Van Hemel <address@hidden> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, David Lawrence Ramsey wrote:
>
>> --- Wouter Van Hemel <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >This test does not fail (or segfault).
>>
>> Since I don't have access to a system using glibc 2.2.3, I had to rely
>> on the info DB provided about the crash's occurring on blank lines.
>> Apparently I didn't get it right; sorry about that.  However, I've
>
>Well, the BROKEN_REGEXEC patch works, so it's really not a problem to me.

That's good, at least.

<snip>

>No, it doesn't. Feel free to send me other tests or patches, if you have
>other ideas...

After going through the glibc mailing list archives from around the time 
of 2.2.3-2.2.4, the closest thing to this bug appears to be the problem
described at:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2001-06/msg00015.html

I've modified the (attached) test program to try and trigger this, and 
if I got it right, it should segfault on your system.  Let me know if it
does.  Thanks in advance.


_____________________________________________________________
Sluggy.Net: The Sluggy Freelance Community!

_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get address@hidden w/No Ads, 
6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

test.c
Description: Binary data