Re: pathchk bug

[Jim Meyering]

Thanks a lot!
I've applied your patch and added a test for the bug.

"Tim J. Robbins" <address@hidden> wrote:
> I believe there's a bug in the pathchk utility in GNU sh-utils 2.0j.
> Instead of checking the return value of the function against zero, it checks
> the address of the function, which is never equal.
>
> The fix is trivial:
>
> --- pathchk.c.old     Tue May 21 20:29:23 2002
> +++ pathchk.c Tue May 21 20:30:38 2002
> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@
>        if (!last_elem)
>       {
>         exists = dir_ok (path);
> -       if (dir_ok == 0)
> +       if (exists == 0)
>           {
>             free (parent);
>             return 1;