Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
@ 2009-05-23 13:48 Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-23 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
  2009-05-29 11:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-23 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb-patches

The current documentation of these two functions is misleading, and can
easily cause off-by-one bugs, if one follows it to the letter and
doesn't double-check with what the source actually does.

I tried to be more accurate in the patch below.

OK?

2009-05-23  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@gnu.org>

	* snprintf.c: Doc fix.

	* vsnprintf.c: Doc fix.

--- libiberty/snprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
+++ libiberty/snprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:34:39.265625000 +0300
@@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
 
 @deftypefn Supplemental int snprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, ...)
 
-This function is similar to sprintf, but it will print at most @var{n}
-characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the
-number of characters that would have been printed had @var{n} been
-sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of @var{n}.  Note
-some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this correctly so users
-cannot generally rely on the return value if the system version of
-this function is used.
+This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
+var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
+On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
+bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
+written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
+value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
+this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
+the system version of this function is used.
 
 @end deftypefn
 
--- libiberty/vsnprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
+++ libiberty/vsnprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:36:07.265625000 +0300
@@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
 
 @deftypefn Supplemental int vsnprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, va_list @var{ap})
 
-This function is similar to vsprintf, but it will print at most
-@var{n} characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it
-returns the number of characters that would have been printed had
-@var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of
-@var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this
-correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if the
-system version of this function is used.
+This function is similar to @code{vsprintf}, but it will write at most
+@var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
+On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
+bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
+written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
+value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
+this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
+the system version of this function is used.
 
 @end deftypefn
 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-23 13:48 [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf Eli Zaretskii
@ 2009-05-23 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
  2009-05-23 17:02   ` Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-29 11:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2009-05-23 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb-patches, Eli Zaretskii

Hi Eli,

libiberty is maintained by gcc.  You should send this to gcc-patches@.

(I always have to peek at src/MAINTAINERS to remind myself.)

-- 
Pedro Alves

On Saturday 23 May 2009 14:48:23, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> The current documentation of these two functions is misleading, and can
> easily cause off-by-one bugs, if one follows it to the letter and
> doesn't double-check with what the source actually does.
> 
> I tried to be more accurate in the patch below.
> 
> OK?
> 
> 2009-05-23  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> 	* snprintf.c: Doc fix.
> 
> 	* vsnprintf.c: Doc fix.
> 
> --- libiberty/snprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
> +++ libiberty/snprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:34:39.265625000 +0300



> @@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
>  
>  @deftypefn Supplemental int snprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, ...)
>  
> -This function is similar to sprintf, but it will print at most @var{n}
> -characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the
> -number of characters that would have been printed had @var{n} been
> -sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of @var{n}.  Note
> -some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this correctly so users
> -cannot generally rely on the return value if the system version of
> -this function is used.
> +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
> +var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> +On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
> +bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
> +written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
> +value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
> +this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
> +the system version of this function is used.
>  
>  @end deftypefn
>  
> --- libiberty/vsnprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
> +++ libiberty/vsnprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:36:07.265625000 +0300
> @@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
>  
>  @deftypefn Supplemental int vsnprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, va_list @var{ap})
>  
> -This function is similar to vsprintf, but it will print at most
> -@var{n} characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it
> -returns the number of characters that would have been printed had
> -@var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of
> -@var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this
> -correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if the
> -system version of this function is used.
> +This function is similar to @code{vsprintf}, but it will write at most
> +@var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> +On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
> +bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
> +written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
> +value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
> +this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
> +the system version of this function is used.
>  
>  @end deftypefn
>  
> 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-23 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2009-05-23 17:02   ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-23 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: gdb-patches

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 14:55:21 +0100
> 
> libiberty is maintained by gcc.  You should send this to gcc-patches@.

I did, but forgot to CC this list.  Thus this message.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-23 13:48 [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-23 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2009-05-29 11:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-29 20:22   ` DJ Delorie
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-29 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-patches; +Cc: gdb-patches

> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 16:48:23 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>

Ping!

> The current documentation of these two functions is misleading, and can
> easily cause off-by-one bugs, if one follows it to the letter and
> doesn't double-check with what the source actually does.
> 
> I tried to be more accurate in the patch below.
> 
> OK?
> 
> 2009-05-23  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> 	* snprintf.c: Doc fix.
> 
> 	* vsnprintf.c: Doc fix.
> 
> --- libiberty/snprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
> +++ libiberty/snprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:34:39.265625000 +0300
> @@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
>  
>  @deftypefn Supplemental int snprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, ...)
>  
> -This function is similar to sprintf, but it will print at most @var{n}
> -characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the
> -number of characters that would have been printed had @var{n} been
> -sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of @var{n}.  Note
> -some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this correctly so users
> -cannot generally rely on the return value if the system version of
> -this function is used.
> +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
> +var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> +On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
> +bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
> +written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
> +value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
> +this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
> +the system version of this function is used.
>  
>  @end deftypefn
>  
> --- libiberty/vsnprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
> +++ libiberty/vsnprintf.c	2009-05-23 16:36:07.265625000 +0300
> @@ -27,13 +27,14 @@
>  
>  @deftypefn Supplemental int vsnprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, va_list @var{ap})
>  
> -This function is similar to vsprintf, but it will print at most
> -@var{n} characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it
> -returns the number of characters that would have been printed had
> -@var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of
> -@var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this
> -correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if the
> -system version of this function is used.
> +This function is similar to @code{vsprintf}, but it will write at most
> +@var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> +On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
> +bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
> +written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
> +value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
> +this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
> +the system version of this function is used.
>  
>  @end deftypefn
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 11:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2009-05-29 20:22   ` DJ Delorie
  2009-05-29 20:28     ` Dave Korn
  2009-05-29 20:42     ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2009-05-29 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches


Ok.  Do you need someone to commit it for you?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:22   ` DJ Delorie
@ 2009-05-29 20:28     ` Dave Korn
  2009-05-29 20:34       ` DJ Delorie
  2009-05-29 20:42     ` Eli Zaretskii
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2009-05-29 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, gcc-patches, gdb-patches

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Ok.  Do you need someone to commit it for you?

  Also, how about that proposed variation to the wording?

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01524.html

    cheers,
      DaveK


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:28     ` Dave Korn
@ 2009-05-29 20:34       ` DJ Delorie
  2009-05-29 20:39         ` Dave Korn
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2009-05-29 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Korn; +Cc: eliz, gcc-patches, gdb-patches


> Also, how about that proposed variation to the wording?
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01524.html

When it comes to documentation, I'm willing to trust Eli's judgement.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:34       ` DJ Delorie
@ 2009-05-29 20:39         ` Dave Korn
  2009-05-29 20:59           ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2009-05-29 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: Dave Korn, eliz, gcc-patches, gdb-patches

DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Also, how about that proposed variation to the wording?
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01524.html
> 
> When it comes to documentation, I'm willing to trust Eli's judgement.

  Sorry for piggybacking, that question was directed at Eli!

    cheers,
      DaveK


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:22   ` DJ Delorie
  2009-05-29 20:28     ` Dave Korn
@ 2009-05-29 20:42     ` Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-29 20:45       ` DJ Delorie
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-29 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches

> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:58:03 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> 
> Ok.  Do you need someone to commit it for you?

Yes, please.

Thanks.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:42     ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2009-05-29 20:45       ` DJ Delorie
  2009-05-29 21:44         ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2009-05-29 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches


Ok.  Decide on the final wording/patch and email it to me, and I'll
apply it.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:39         ` Dave Korn
@ 2009-05-29 20:59           ` Eli Zaretskii
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-29 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Korn; +Cc: dj, dave.korn.cygwin, gcc-patches, gdb-patches

> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:50:41 +0100
> From: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
> CC: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>, eliz@gnu.org, 
>  gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >> Also, how about that proposed variation to the wording?
> >>
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01524.html
> > 
> > When it comes to documentation, I'm willing to trust Eli's judgement.
> 
>   Sorry for piggybacking, that question was directed at Eli!

Here's the modified version:

--- libiberty/snprintf.c~0	2005-05-10 21:33:34.000000000 +0300
+++ libiberty/snprintf.c	2009-05-29 23:51:35.453125000 +0300
@@ -27,13 +27,15 @@
 
 @deftypefn Supplemental int snprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, ...)
 
-This function is similar to sprintf, but it will print at most @var{n}
-characters.  On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the
-number of characters that would have been printed had @var{n} been
-sufficiently large, regardless of the actual value of @var{n}.  Note
-some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement this correctly so users
-cannot generally rely on the return value if the system version of
-this function is used.
+This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write to
+@var{buf} at most @code{@var{n}-1} bytes of text, followed by a
+terminating null byte, for a total of @var{n} bytes.
+On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
+bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
+written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual
+value of @var{n}.  Note some pre-C99 system libraries do not implement
+this correctly so users cannot generally rely on the return value if
+the system version of this function is used.
 
 @end deftypefn
 
--- libiberty/vsnprintf.c~	2009-05-23 16:36:07.265625000 +0300
+++ libiberty/vsnprintf.c	2009-05-29 23:52:35.203125000 +0300
@@ -27,8 +27,9 @@
 
 @deftypefn Supplemental int vsnprintf (char *@var{buf}, size_t @var{n}, const char *@var{format}, va_list @var{ap})
 
-This function is similar to @code{vsprintf}, but it will write at most
-@var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
+This function is similar to @code{vsprintf}, but it will write to
+@var{buf} at most @code{@var{n}-1} bytes of text, followed by a
+terminating null byte, for a total of @var{n} bytes.
 On error the return value is -1, otherwise it returns the number of
 bytes, not including the terminating null byte, that would have been
 written had @var{n} been sufficiently large, regardless of the actual


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 20:45       ` DJ Delorie
@ 2009-05-29 21:44         ` Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-30  5:18           ` DJ Delorie
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-29 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches

> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:45:32 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> 
> Ok.  Decide on the final wording/patch and email it to me, and I'll
> apply it.

Please apply the modified version I sent at 23:59:08 +0300.

Thanks.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-29 21:44         ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2009-05-30  5:18           ` DJ Delorie
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2009-05-30  5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches


Applied.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
  2009-05-23 17:13   ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2009-05-23 20:09     ` Dave Korn
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dave Korn @ 2009-05-23 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Dave Korn, gcc-patches, gdb-patches

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:29:20 +0100
>> From: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
>> CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>
>>   I think it's still a little bit unclear:
>>
>>> +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
>>> +var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
>>   It could still be perceived as ambiguous.  That sentence says that the
>> terminating null byte is included in the count of
>> "the-most-bytes-it-will-write", but it doesn't explicitly say that it won't be
>> truncated off like the rest of the characters if the output is too long.
> 
> I thought it did say that, as
> 
>   "write at most N bytes (including the terminating null byte)"
> 
> means that it will write no more than N bytes, and those N bytes
> include the null byte.

  Yes, the text can be taken to mean this as well, and that is clearly the
intended meaning once you know, but it's about how this sentence says the NUL
terminating byte should be *counted* the same as all the rest, it might seem
to imply that it is *treated* the same as all the rest - and it's not, it's
treated differently.

> However, I don't mind the text you suggest if people think it says the
> same more clearly:
> 
>> How about
>>
>>> +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
>>> +var{n} bytes (truncating the output if necessary, so that there is
>>> +always guaranteed to be a terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> 
> Or maybe we should make it clearer still:
> 
>  This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write to
>  @var{buf} at most @code{var{n}-1} bytes of text, followed by a
>  terminating null byte, for the total of @var{n} bytes.
> 
> WDYT?

  That WFM just fine too :)

    cheers,
      DaveK


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf
       [not found] ` <4A180840.3040004@gmail.com>
@ 2009-05-23 17:13   ` Eli Zaretskii
  2009-05-23 20:09     ` Dave Korn
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-05-23 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Korn; +Cc: gcc-patches, gdb-patches

> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:29:20 +0100
> From: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
> CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> 
>   I think it's still a little bit unclear:
> 
> > +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
> > +var{n} bytes (including the terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.
> 
>   It could still be perceived as ambiguous.  That sentence says that the
> terminating null byte is included in the count of
> "the-most-bytes-it-will-write", but it doesn't explicitly say that it won't be
> truncated off like the rest of the characters if the output is too long.

I thought it did say that, as

  "write at most N bytes (including the terminating null byte)"

means that it will write no more than N bytes, and those N bytes
include the null byte.

However, I don't mind the text you suggest if people think it says the
same more clearly:

> How about
> 
> > +This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write at most
> > +var{n} bytes (truncating the output if necessary, so that there is
> > +always guaranteed to be a terminating null byte) to @var{buf}.

Or maybe we should make it clearer still:

 This function is similar to @code{sprintf}, but it will write to
 @var{buf} at most @code{var{n}-1} bytes of text, followed by a
 terminating null byte, for the total of @var{n} bytes.

WDYT?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-30  5:18 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-23 13:48 [RFA] Fix documentation of snprintf and vsnprintf Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-23 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
2009-05-23 17:02   ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-29 11:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-29 20:22   ` DJ Delorie
2009-05-29 20:28     ` Dave Korn
2009-05-29 20:34       ` DJ Delorie
2009-05-29 20:39         ` Dave Korn
2009-05-29 20:59           ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-29 20:42     ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-29 20:45       ` DJ Delorie
2009-05-29 21:44         ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-30  5:18           ` DJ Delorie
     [not found] <83d4a0szry.fsf@gnu.org>
     [not found] ` <4A180840.3040004@gmail.com>
2009-05-23 17:13   ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-23 20:09     ` Dave Korn

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox