- 2008.08.30 02:08 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Tom Lane
-
2008.08.31 15:17 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2008.08.31 15:38 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.08.31 21:09 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Rogier Wolff
- 2008.08.31 21:21 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Olaf_Drümmer
-
2008.08.31 21:51 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2008.08.31 22:08 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.08.31 21:52 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Toby Thain
- 2008.09.01 15:40 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.08.31 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.08.31 22:17 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.09.01 03:12 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2008.09.01 15:52 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
-
2008.09.01 21:33 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2008.09.03 16:38 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
-
2008.09.03 17:07 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.09.03 17:20 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.09.03 18:02 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.09.03 19:32 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Ron
- 2008.09.03 21:39 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
-
2008.09.03 17:20 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.09.03 17:16 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2008.09.04 07:45 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2008.09.03 17:07 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.09.03 16:38 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.09.01 22:30 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Dmitry V. Levin
-
2008.09.01 21:33 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2008.09.01 15:52 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
-
2008.09.01 05:11 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Tom Lane
- 2008.09.01 15:30 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2008.09.01 15:33 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2008.09.01 16:23 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Ron
- 2008.09.01 22:04 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Dmitry V. Levin
-
2008.08.31 21:09 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Rogier Wolff
-
2008.08.31 15:38 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2008.09.03 08:03 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2008.09.04 20:48 "Re: [Tiff] beta2 release - lfind() problem on Win64", by Edward Lam
- 2008.09.03 21:01 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Lee Howard
- 2008.09.03 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Some security fixes from RHEL", by Even Rouault
2008.09.04 20:48 "Re: [Tiff] beta2 release - lfind() problem on Win64", by Edward Lam
Hi Andrey,
I tried compiling libtiff to use lfind.c in the port/ directory. However, because the bad lfind() prototype still gets seen, the problem persists. ie. we get the following valid warning from VC8 on Win64:
tif_dirinfo.c(508): warning C4133: 'function': incompatible types - from 'size_t *' to 'unsigned int *'
So, I think that lfind() needs to be renamed to something like port_lfind()?
Cheers,
-Edward
PS. Yes, I know this is an old issue but I haven't found time to get back to libtiff. :)
Andrey Kiselev wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:31:36AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> The recent libtiff updates in this area were necessary so that libtiff
>> works properly in 64-bit applications. This is supposed to be the
>> prototype for lfind:
>>
>> void *lfind(const void *key, const void *base, size_t *nelp,
>> size_t width, int (*compar)(const void *, const void *));
>>
>> It seems that the only cure is to add Windows specific code to handle
>> this specific case.
>
> We have such a code (see port/ directory) and it was used on Windows > platform until I discovered that lfind is hidden under _lfind name
> there. So we can just continue using our implementation.
>
> Other option is to use _lfind_s() function which is advertised as a > "safe" replacement to the old one, but then we will need to modify
> comparison functions declarations too, because _lfind_s passes extra > parameter down there. The first way is simpler, of course.
> PS.
> OFF: do they seriously thinking that their "safe" functions really help
> people?
>
>