[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:15:32 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: u-igbb@...ey.se
Subject: Re: memmem() - is it correct?
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:54:03PM +0300, Timo Teras wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:51:16 +0300
> Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:49:25 +0200
> > u-igbb@...ey.se wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:19:03PM +0300, Timo Teras wrote:
> > > > > const char *haystack = "abcde";
> > > > > return(!memmem(haystack, 4, "cde", 3));
> > >
> > > > > returns 1 (as I would expect it to) if linked against uclibc
> > > > > returns 0 if linked against musl
> > > > > (on ia32)
> > >
> > > I guess you misinterpreted the test code, there is a '!' which
> > > transforms a returned pointer (success) to 0 exit status in main()
> > > and vice versa.
> >
> > Right. Should have read it more carefully. Yes, looks like musl bug.
> >
> > Perhaps something like the following is in place:
>
> Wrong patch version. Should be as simple as:
>
> diff --git a/src/string/memmem.c b/src/string/memmem.c
> index 5211d75..1173020 100644
> --- a/src/string/memmem.c
> +++ b/src/string/memmem.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ void *memmem(const void *h0, size_t k, const void
> *n0, size_t l) /* Use faster algorithms for short needles */
> h = memchr(h0, *n, k);
> if (!h || l==1) return (void *)h;
> + k -= h - (const unsigned char*)h0;
> if (l==2) return twobyte_memmem(h, k, n);
> if (l==3) return threebyte_memmem(h, k, n);
> if (l==4) return fourbyte_memmem(h, k, n);
Thanks! Committed.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
