I installed the following (slightly different) patch for that problem,
into gnulib. It's tested with GNU tar.
2005-06-22 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* xmalloc.c (HAVE_GNU_CALLOC): New constant.
(xcalloc): Use it to avoid needless tests.
Problem reported by Jim Meyer
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> How about the following (also untested) patch?
>
> 2005-06-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * xmalloc (HAVE_GNU_CALLOC): New macro.
> (xcalloc): Omit needless tests if ! HAVE_GNU_CALLOC.
Looks fine to me.
Thanks!
__
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This makes me think it'd be worthwhile to support a new section in
> the modules file listing `Recommended' modules.
Yes, that would be nice. It's been suggested before but nobody has
had the time yet to do it. gnulib-tool might bring in recommended
mo
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As it stands, if I use both of the xalloc and calloc modules,
>> calling xcalloc ends up performing the overflow check twice,
>> first in xcalloc itself (above), and then again in calloc.
>
> Also, xcalloc conta
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As it stands, if I use both of the xalloc and calloc modules,
> calling xcalloc ends up performing the overflow check twice,
> first in xcalloc itself (above), and then again in calloc.
Also, xcalloc contains a test n != 0 that isn't needed when
rpl_call
Currently, the xalloc module doesn't depend on any other.
I think it should depend at least on the calloc module.
If it did so, the test for overflow
/* Test for overflow, since some calloc implementations don't have
proper overflow checks. */
if (xalloc_oversized (n, s) || (! (p = callo
