[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:25:34 +0100


David wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > Are you recoiling in horror, or think it's a good idea?  I can't
> > tell :-)
> :-)  I think it's a good idea.  m_getfld() and its clients are
> difficult to maintain and expand.

It's not so much m_getfld()'s maintenance as getting it working.  :-)
I've a really pathological email here from my Aunt Dolly that makes
every version of nmh I can get to build access free(3)'d memory.  Don't
know how she does it.  There doesn't seem much point trying to patch
m_getfld() and friends yet again, especially when this particular
problem won't be hit in practice.

Meanwhile, I kind of agree with kre's, was it, comment about flex being
overkill.  I've been wondering if a next small step would be keeping
m_getfld()'s weird interface for all the many callers, but have a new
implementation that never un-gets more than one byte.  I think it's
possible, and with just stdio.h tracking buffering.  It should make the
internal logic much simpler, so it ideally can be "seen" to be correct.

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]