Re: is_mangled

Christopher R. Hertel (crh@NTS.Umn.EDU)
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:21:46 -0600 (CST)

From:	"Christopher R. Hertel" <crh@NTS.Umn.EDU>
Message-Id: <199803311922.NAA06579@unet.unet.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: is_mangled
To:	jallison@whistle.com (Jeremy Allison)
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:21:46 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <35202ECA.48EE4166@whistle.com> from "Jeremy Allison" at Mar 30, 98 03:46:18 pm

Jeremy, Andrew,

> Looks good to me - but the ultimate arbiter is
> to *test* the change before you commit it.

Are you kidding? The way this list flames for any new bugs! ;>

Yep. I caught one today, in fact. I figured out why/how the recusion
works in the old version. I've replaced it with a loop.

Basically, I'm feeding all sorts of odd strings to both functions and
looking for differences now. I'll probably wait to submit the changes
until I've tested against a Wind/95 box.

Andrew also talked about speed. I've made the function more restrictive
(the old one would return TRUE for "~~~", the new one won't), but I've
done so by adding additional function calls (strlen() and strchr()). I
don't expect this to be a major problem considering the other speed
improvements I'm planning to make in mangle.c.

> If it works at least as well as the old one (try running 16 bit
> executables from Win95 and make sure they're happy
> with the mangled names etc) - then go for it !

Win/95 box order is being prepared. I'm waiting for the quote from VA
Research. If I get what I'm looking for, I should have access to Win/95,
Win/NT4 Server, and RedHat. It would be a shared machine (not mine), but
I'd probably have first dibbs.

> BTW: main branch only - is that your intention ?

I believe that's the only one I'm accessing just now.

Chris -)-----

-- 
Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
crh@nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services