Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thanks, but that doesn't matter. When st_size is used that way (when
>> ->fts_info == FTS_NSOK), its value must be FTS_STAT_REQUIRED (1) or
>> FTS_NO_STAT_REQUIRED (2). If there is a way to make it have any other
>> value, it's a bug.
>
> Yes, but the point of the switch is that it attempts to detect these
> bugs, and to abort if there is a bug by falling into the default case.
> Formerly the code detected the bug when st_size was 2**32 + 2.
> Currently the code does not detect the bug in this case; it treats
> 2**32 + 2 like FTS_STAT_REQUIRED.
>
> It's a very minor point, and not worth much worry. (I'm just trying
> to explain the point at this point. :-)
Every little bit helps :-)
I've done as you suggest:
Use a more robust test for a "can't happen" condition.
* lib/fts.c (fts_read): Revert the change of 2006-11-22, since it
narrowed the st_size value. Presuming the "can't happen" condition
is true, that narrowing could conceivably convert an invalid st_size
value into a valid one. Instead, use a change based on Matthew
Woehlke's original patch.
Index: lib/fts.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/gnulib/gnulib/lib/fts.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -p -r1.31 fts.c
--- lib/fts.c 8 Jan 2007 10:30:47 -0000 1.31
+++ lib/fts.c 8 Jan 2007 10:31:58 -0000
@@ -740,17 +740,10 @@ name: t = sp->fts_path + NAPPEND(p->fts
check_for_dir:
if (p->fts_info == FTS_NSOK)
{
- enum Fts_stat need_stat = p->fts_statp->st_size;
- switch (need_stat)
- {
- case FTS_STAT_REQUIRED:
- p->fts_info = fts_stat(sp, p, false);
- break;
- case FTS_NO_STAT_REQUIRED:
- break;
- default:
- fts_assert (0);
- }
+ if (p->fts_statp->st_size == FTS_STAT_REQUIRED)
+ p->fts_info = fts_stat(sp, p, false);
+ else
+ fts_assert (p->fts_statp->st_size ==
FTS_NO_STAT_REQUIRED);
}
sp->fts_cur = p;
