Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

On Aug  8 10:40, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  8 10:06, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > > Hi Christian,
> > > > 
> > > > On Aug  7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > > > Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Christian
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
> > > > > index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
> > > > > --- a/peflags.c
> > > > > +++ b/peflags.c
> > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
> > > > >    #include <unistd.h>
> > > > >    #include <getopt.h>
> > > > >    #include <errno.h>
> > > > > -#include <limits.h>
> > > > >    #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
> > > > >    #include <sys/mman.h>
> > > > >    #endif
> > > > > @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
> > > > >    	   || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
> > > > >    	   /* Just a ULONG value */
> > > > >    	   || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
> > > > > -	       && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
> > > > > +	       && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
> > > > What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
> > > Of course :-)
> > > 
> > > Christian
> > > 
> > Pushed.  I've started deploying a new release.
> 
> I'm currently working on 'rebase -c, --checksum' and found one minor issue:
> pechecksum.* are missing in SRC_DISTFILES.

Ok, I stopped the deployment.  Are you going to send fixes?


Corinna