Trying to do so would dereference a NULL pointer in copy_node().
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57915.
Bug existed since before version 2.2.0.
Also, remove two superfluous closings of file descriptors. The second
one has most likely already been closed by send_data(), by closing the
tube, and the first one will be closed by exiting from the process.
Also, avoid two superfluous assignments of a message, as they get
overwritten immediately by other ones, and later with the same.
Furthermore, remove two pointless placements of the cursor. Any
necessary placements are handled by the actual adding of data and
the breaking of lines in the ADD and ENTER items.
Especially when undoing an addition, reallocating the line data is a
waste of time, because most likely other text will be added instead.
(This also removes a coding error in the redo code for a deletion:
it allocated too many bytes for the new line data: twice the amount
of the deletion too much.)
I don't know what I was thinking three years ago with this convoluted
'from_x' and 'to_x'. When undoing an <Enter>, the cursor always needs
to be placed back at the 'head' point. And the data always needs to be
copied starting from 'tail_x' (skipping any whitespace that autoindent
might have added).
When redoing an <Enter>, there is no need to reallocate and copy the
data of the line, it is enough to just clip it at the original cursor
position. (This wastes some memory, but... how often does one redo
an <Enter>? So, conciseness of the code is preferable.)
Also, remove superfluous parentheses, add missing edge-of-word markers,
correct the "ppciseries" keyword, and fold some regexes (or elements of
them) together.
In RPM 4.15, a number of new spec section features were introduced:
* %dnl - macro-engine level comments
* %elif, %elifos, %elifarch - 'else if' stanzas for conditionals
* %sourcelist - section for listing sources line by line
* %patchlist - section for listing patches line by line
* %generate_buildrequires - script section after %prep for
generating build dependencies
(Reference: https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.15.0.html.)
An enhancement added in RPM 4.13:
* Sections for file trigger stanzas
(Reference: https://rpm.org/user_doc/file_triggers.html.)
As these are being increasingly used in Fedora and other distributions,
it's quite helpful to have syntax highlighting be up to date on handling
them.
Signed-off-by: Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com>
Now all remaining calls of measured_copy() have a "+ 1" in their
second argument, and can thus be simplified. And each of those
calls is followed by terminating the string with a NUL byte, so
thát can be pulled into the function.
The old address has become invalid, and probably does not have enough
room for the write, thus causing a crash.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57858.
Bug existed since commit 8625609c from two days ago.
Not doing it characterwise saves a reallocation, a memmove(), several
checks, and an update_undo() for each character over one.
This has been tested by temporarily setting 'bracketed_paste = FALSE'
instead of 'bracketed_paste = TRUE' in convert_sequence() in winio.c,
and then pasting stuff into nano.
And before the buffer size is adjusted, so that the add_undo()
doesn't need to correct the stored former size of the buffer.
This will allow the injection of multiple characters at once,
in the next commit.
The SPLIT_BEGIN item gets tucked underneath the ADD item on the top of
the undo stack. Thus: that SPLIT_BEGIN item should copy the 'wassize'
of the ADD item instead of storing the current buffer size.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57832.
Bug existed since the undo functionality was added, and existed
in this form since version 2.3.5, commit be10c2a4.
In theory this would allow injecting more than one character at a time
into the edit buffer. But the creation and updating of an undo item for
the addition or the deletion of a character are a bit strange. For all
other operations and add_undo() is called before the operation, and an
update_undo() afterward. But for an ADD, the add_undo() is called after
the operation, and for a DEL/BACK, the update_undo() is called before
the operation. There is some logic to that, but things would be easier
to understand if all operations were handled the same: an add_undo()
beforehand (when needed), and an update_undo() afterward.
Benno Schulenberg