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

[Christian Franke <Christian.Franke@t-online.de>]

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.