Re: pathchk bug

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

"Tim J. Robbins" <[email protected]> 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;