Thanks, I installed your updated dfa.c patch into Gnulib, along with the
attached cleanup patch.
>From 91e8dccc3c352d56262e24f8fc8d4b736092e639 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:44:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] dfa: remove dfa-heap-overrun workaround
* lib/dfa.c (r
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:43:05 -0700
Jim Meyering wrote:
> One nit with the patch: this statement is duplicated:
>
> + position *p = firstpos - stk[-1].nfirstpos;
> + for (position *p = firstpos - stk[-1].nfirstpos;
I removed first declaration.
> And can you clarify yo
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:29 AM Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:28:32 -0700
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > On 9/14/20 12:13 AM, Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
> >
> > > when (i >= d->follows[i].elems[j].index), it seems that
> > > map[d->follows[i].elems[j].index] has been already set a value
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:28:32 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 9/14/20 12:13 AM, Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
>
> > when (i >= d->follows[i].elems[j].index), it seems that
> > map[d->follows[i].elems[j].index] has been already set a value more than 0.
> >
> > What case violates this assumption?
>
> Than
On 9/14/20 12:13 AM, Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
when (i >= d->follows[i].elems[j].index), it seems that
map[d->follows[i].elems[j].index] has been already set a value more than 0.
What case violates this assumption?
Thank you for looking into this. I ran into the problem with the
dfa-heap-overru
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 18:41:49 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> * lib/dfa.c (reorder_tokens): When setting
> map[d->follows[i].elems[j].index], instead of incorrectly assuming
> that (i < d->follows[i].elems[j].index), use two loops, one to set
> the map array and the other to use it. The incorrect as
* lib/dfa.c (reorder_tokens): When setting
map[d->follows[i].elems[j].index], instead of incorrectly assuming
that (i < d->follows[i].elems[j].index), use two loops, one to set
the map array and the other to use it. The incorrect assumption
caused some elements to be missed, and this in turn cause
