Re: PATH_MAX used dangerously -- do we care?

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 25, 10:13pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATH_MAX used dangerously -- do we care?
}
} > Finally, the last hunk below makes use of DIGBUFSIZE in a couple of
} > places in params.c where it appeared it should have been used.
} 
} That's wrong.  DIGBUFSIZE should be be used when a buffer has to store
} things like -2#101100001011101...  DIGBUFSIZE is for decimal digit buffers
} only.

Yes, decimal digits ARE what's being written into the buffers in the two
cases where I made the change.  Compare lines 651-656, which I changed,
to lines 708-711, which I did not change.  Why should DIGBUFSIZE be used
on 708 but not on 651?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                             Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts            http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern

New male in /home/schaefer:
>N  2 Justin William Schaefer  Sat May 11 03:43  53/4040  "Happy Birthday"