Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> In find_unmerged_mergeinfo (subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c circa line
>>> 7490), the line near the bottom of the function:
>>> if (SVN_IS_VALID_REVNUM(youngest_merged_rev))
>>>
>>> ...causes a compile error on c89 compilers. It looks like this line should
>>> actually be:
>>> if (SVN_IS_VALID_REVNUM(*youngest_merged_rev))
>>>
>>> (Noticed in 1.5.6 and 1.6.0.)
>> Yes, that does look like a bug. Fixed in r36783.
>>
>> Paul, should this be merged into 1.5.x and 1.6.x?
>
> Blair,
>
> Yes, I'll nominate both.
>
> It appears that this hasn't caused a problem because the only way that
> youngest_merged_rev is ever SVN_INVALID_REVNUM is if we never synced
> the reintegrate target to the reintegrate source before attempting to
> reintegrate. In that case svn_mergeinfo__filter_catalog_by_ranges()
> happily processes this bogus revision input and we simply luck out
> that it doesn't do any filtering at all and so has no impact.
>
> Regardless svn_mergeinfo__filter_mergeinfo_by_ranges should be
> checking its svn_revnum_t arguments for validity, and it is not the
> only offender on this count. I need to check through all the
> mergeinfo code and make sure SVN_INVALID_REVNUMs are not allowed to
> slip through anywhere else.
OK, good to know. I voted on both backports.
Blair
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1432664
Received on 2009-03-26 18:25:14 CET