On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:06:07PM +0100, Radek Vok?l
wrote:>
> I've attached a patch fixing this issue but I'm not convinced this
is the right way to do it.
>
> --- tftp-hpa-0.42/tftp/main.c.old 2006-02-16 18:45:22.000000000 +0100
> +++ tftp-hpa-0.42/tftp/main.c 2006-03-22 11:52:10.000000000 +0100
> @@ -304,9 +305,11 @@
> (*c->handler)(pargc, pargv);
> exit(0);
> }
> - if (sigsetjmp(toplevel,1) != 0)
> + /*
> + if (sigsetjmp(toplevel,1) != 0) {
> (void)putchar('\n');
> -
> + }
> + */
> #ifdef WITH_READLINE
> #ifdef HAVE_READLINE_HISTORY_H
> using_history();
As I see it, it does
--- tftp-hpa-0.42/tftp/main.c.old 2006-02-16 18:45:22.000000000 +0100
+++ tftp-hpa-0.42/tftp/main.c 2006-03-22 11:52:10.000000000 +0100
@@ -304,9 +m,n @@
(*c->handler)(pargc, pargv);
exit(0);
}
- if (sigsetjmp(toplevel,1) != 0)
- (void)putchar('\n');
-
#ifdef WITH_READLINE
#ifdef HAVE_READLINE_HISTORY_H
using_history();
GSt
Currently no resources to dive deeper into it.