Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

adapt to current Rack development version, and fix some issues en-passant #57

Open
wants to merge 89 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

holgerschurig
Copy link

Hi,

after I did the adaption to the 0.6.0dev API, I found out by chance that dizzisound also did this. *) So it seems that people want compile your code against the newest-and-hottest (and buggiest, lol) Rack.

While I adapted the plugins, I also noticed some errors from my Linux GCC compiler. And while at it, I thought "Hey, let's throw clang's static analyzer onto the code". And it also found some things. I fixed all of them.

*) dizzisound@774f6dc ... he didn't create a pull request

mschack and others added 24 commits November 25, 2017 11:32
A run with "scan-build-6 make" on Linux (which uses Clang's static
analyzer) found these dead assignments.
Clang's static analyzer noticed It turned out that finR wasn't
initialized, but still used. Fix that.
Clang's static analyzer noticed that in the default case of the switch
statement out[] wasn't initialized and that 2 lines below the
uninitialized memory could have been used.
The first parameter of any *printf function should be should be a
string literal. If you pass in some random string, then the %s, %p etc
that might be in the random string will be interpreted, with whatever
garbage is currently on the stack.

We could now convert this to fwrite(), but just using the most simply
string conversion seemed more simple, this isn't time critical code
anyway.
@dizzisound
Copy link

dizzisound commented Mar 13, 2018

@holgerschurig Hi Holger, only to inform you that I didn't proceeded with a PR as per this issue: #55 that was then closed by @cschol
In short, the dev wished to make the update himself, so as to upgrade the modules with new features he hadn't pushed yet.
Regards

@mschack
Copy link
Owner

mschack commented Apr 1, 2018

sorry guys, i missed this and submitted my 0.6 build

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants