> No but it worked, and was the first attempt I made to get it to work. > Maybe the values being passed are wrong, or we are getting sign > extension? I suspect the value is wrong, and masking reverted back to the good value. Now we have to understand where the value goes wrong, possibly why, and find the better fix we can. > I believe it is a UTF patch, I googled for perl and UTF8 and found a > few references to this bug in other scripts, and there is reference to > Redhat using an unreleased patch. Patch 18379 is not related to UTF. BTW, there are much much more than this only patch in Red Hat's Perl. There are at least 50, three quarters of them being taken from Perl's CVS (so one quarter is Red Hat's own set of patches). I really wonder why there is only one patch showing in your output. There are 28 patches containing the "UTF" string, so it may be hard finding which one is causing the problem. And we are not even sure any patch is faulty. Some questions now: 1* I'd like to make sure you and my friend are using the same version of Perl. He is using perl(2:5.8.0-88).i386 (Red Hat 9). Which version are you using? 2* How did you get the output you attached in your last mail? -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
