New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
perlio.c has a problem (both 5.8 and 5.10) #9347
Comments
From g.psy.va@gmail.comHi. I think perlio.c has an issue in PerlIORaw_pushed(). The problem is that PerlIORaw_pushed() may supply a layer's Binmode() I have written a patch and test. Please see the attached. Thanks. Goro Fuji gfuji@cpan.org Flags: This perlbug was built using Perl v5.8.5 in the Red Hat build system. Site configuration information for perl v5.8.5: Configured by Red Hat, Inc. at Fri Dec 16 14:05:59 EST 2005. Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 8 subversion 5) configuration: Locally applied patches: @INC for perl v5.8.5: Environment for perl v5.8.5: |
From g.psy.va@gmail.com#!perl -w use Test::More tests => 3; use PerlIO::via::QuotedPrint; # (1) push any layer with its own binmode() that touches its own fields # (2) push any layer that is not the layer above #diag join ' ', PerlIO::get_layers(*STDIN); # (3) calls PerlIORaw_pushed() |
From @rgs2008/5/26 via RT Goro Fuji <perlbug-followup@perl.org>:
I agree with this.
Good catch. I've applied the first chunk of the patch (see below). I (PS. Please send patches as the output of diff -u, for easier review Change 33978 by rgs@scipion on 2008/06/01 14:05:16 Subject: [perl #54828] perlio.c has a problem (both 5.8 and 5.10) First chunk of the patch only Affected files ... ... //depot/perl/perlio.c#387 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/perl/perlio.c#387 (text) ==== @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From g.psy.va@gmail.comIn fact, the second chunk of the patch is not necessarily needed, but (copied from the patch)
The first chunk of the patch always guarantees PerlIOBase(f)->tab == Thanks, |
From @smpetersOn Mon Jun 02 17:59:59 2008, GFUJI wrote:
OK, I think the confusion was that the second part wasn't really related directly to the first Steve Peters |
@smpeters - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
From @smpetersOn Mon Jun 02 17:59:59 2008, GFUJI wrote:
OK, I think the confusion was that the second part wasn't really related directly to the first Steve Peters |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#54828 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT54828$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: