Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: New bug in uPort: stdio is broken.
Message-ID: <612@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Sep-87 13:49:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.612
Posted: Tue Sep  1 13:49:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Sep-87 06:23:36 EDT
References: <593@sugar.UUCP> <202@hobbes.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 43
Summary: Mea Culpa

In article <202@hobbes.UUCP>, root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
> +---- Peter da Silva writes the following in article <593@sugar.UUCP> ----
> | [[ concerning a "supposed" bug in Microport SV/AT ]]
> Not a bug in stdio - replace the "printf("");" with "strlen("");" and it works,
> too.  The *REAL* bug is that your code is corrupting the stack, specifically
> the call to strchr().  You have reversed the arguments to the function.

You're right. My only possible excuse is I'm a Version 7 fan from way,
and I don't see any good reason for renaming "index()" as "strchr()"...
I have a mental block about strchr() as a result.

And don't flame me about index and strchr having the same arguments. I've
just recently weaned myself off #defining them.

I also misspelled "interleave" as "interleaf" in my message.

> FLAME ON:  Why don't *you* use it?  That's what its for! FLAME OFF!

[what was the name of the guy in the comix who does this? The human
 torch?]

I don't know why I don't use lint... probably because I've pretty much
got all the libraries memorised by now (except for the aforementioned
mental block) and this is about the only error that lint catches and
the compilers don't anymore. I also do a *lot* of 'C' programming in
environments where lint doesn't exist.

After you've linted to no avail enough times you get turned off it.

When ANSI 'C' function prototypes become widely available lint will
go the way of all flesh.

PS: I can't quite figure out how strchr could be corrupting the stack.
The calling argument does all the pushing and popping, strchr never
modifies its arguments, and the size of the arguments is the same
either way.

If strchr *is* clobbering the stack, that's possibly a bug in strchr.

Well, at least a design flaw.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                  U   <--- not a copyrighted cartoon :->