Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy!crl
From: crl@CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bugs
Subject: bug in stdio (setbuf) ?
Message-ID: <909@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Sep-83 12:18:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.909
Posted: Fri Sep  9 12:18:41 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Sep-83 20:26:54 EDT
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN
Lines: 17

I think I have discovered a bug in the way stdio handles its buffers
when you've used setbuf().  We run 2.8 BSD, but I bet it's present
elsewhere.  It seems that iop->_base is not set to NULL by fclose
if you've used a setbuf() to assign your own buffer.  The specific
code is:
	if (iop->_flag & _IOMYBUF)
		free(iop->_base);
	if (iop->_flag & (_IOMYBUF|_IONBF))
		iop->_base = NULL;
in fclose().  Thus, if _base was pointing to your stack, you'll in for
problems the next time you fopen() since this does not zero it either.
I can't think of a good reason why _base should not be zeroed on an
fclose().  Comments?

Charles LaBrec
UUCP:		pur-ee!Physics:crl, purdue!Physics:crl
INTERNET:	crl @ pur-phy.UUCP