Re: c99-to-c89 patch... oops?

[Matthew Woehlke]

Jim Meyering wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > ...is there a reason the leading directories are inconsistent, or is
> > this an oversight? Most of the patch applied with -p2 except shred.c,
> > which needed -p0. This is from Jim's 6.7+ snapshot from Jan-26.
>
> Thanks for the testing and report.
> I didn't notice because the automatic patch-check
> uses patch with no -p option, and that works fine.

Hmm, I thought '-p' was necessary? Huh. :-)

> Here's what I've done to fix it:
> [snip patch]

Looks fine, thanks!

--
Matthew
OFFICER throws a tear gas grenade at you. You start to feel nauseous. 
You need fresh air quickly.
> OPEN WINDOWS
Sorry, I have a philosophical objection to Microsoft products.