jamal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-13-03 at 14:44 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > >>You are wrong on both counts. > > > I am wrong on why it is being rejected - but what you are seeing is > worse than i thought initially. > > Lets put it this way: > The only you will _ever_ get that message is if you had made a syntax > error (which you did not). Please look at the code on where that message > appears and: > > a) tell me how you would have got that message to begin with using > perfectly legal syntax. > a) tell me how a memset would have fixed that. He already told you, pack_key expects the selector to be initialized, otherwise nkeys might contain a value >= 128, which would cause exactly this error, if a matching key is not found within the uninitialized memory by accident. > Just send the memset fix to Stephen with a different reason. Your > current reason is _wrong_ and i really dont have much time to have this > kind of discussion. > If you had said "I added that memset there because it looks like the > right thing to do" then we would not have had this discussion. > > You made claims you fixed a bug. It cant possibly be the bug you fixed. > Was it some other bug perhaps and you mixed up the two? The patch as well as the description are perfectly fine. BTW, running valgrind on tc shows lots of uses of uninitialized values, it seems like a good idea if someone would go over these and fix them up. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
