ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/10/28/00:49:31

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:42:25 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Leonid Pauzner <uue AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libc' getenv optimization (patch3)
In-Reply-To: <2.7.9.LL4Z.H4NNAK@pauzner.dnttm.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021028074013.9027A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Leonid Pauzner wrote:

> > Also, IIRC, functions from dosexec.c bypass `getenv' and `putenv',
> > and poke environ[] directly.
> use  grep -r

??? I meant to ask whether you tested your code with programs that call 
functions from dosexec.c, since they poke environ[].

> >> My hash table is only used in `getenv', and is resynced inside getenv.
> 
> > What about `putenv' and `setenv'?
> only getenv. (putenv left unchanged).

So after a call to `putenv', environ[] and hash_env[] are out of sync?

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019