Bug 21918

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 ak03@gte.com wrote:

> >Description:
> 
> 	The comment on the old (correct) revision states that:
> 	  If the suffix operand is present, is not identical to the
>           characters remaining in string, and is identical to a suffix
>           of the characters remaining in string, the suffix suffix
>           shall be removed from string.	
> 	The new version removes suffix even when suffix is identical 
> 	to the remaining string itself. That is clearly not the 
> 	behaviour both comment and basename man page describe.

basename(3) is remarkably feeble compared with basename(1).  Another case
that has changed is `basename ""`.  basename(3) is specified to bogotify
this case by changing "" to ".".

Bruce

I will commit the following patch later today:

Index: basename.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/basename/basename.c,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 basename.c
--- basename.c	2000/09/06 07:28:02	1.5
+++ basename.c	2000/10/12 08:23:25
@@ -73,8 +73,9 @@
 
 	if ((p = basename(argv[0])) == NULL)
 		err(1, "%s", argv[0]);
-	if (*++argv && (q = strstr(p, *argv)) && strcmp(q, *argv) == 0)
-		*q = '\0';
+	if (*++argv && (q = strchr(p, '\0') - strlen(*argv)) > p &&
+	    strcmp(*argv, q) == 0)
+			*q = '\0';
 	(void)printf("%s\n", p);
 	exit(0);
 }


DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org

> Why do you use 16 lines of code to fix this when all you need is to
> add p != q to the if test?

  I just restored the code you removed in revision 1.4. It is of
course the matter of personal preference, but the old code IMO 
is much more readable than the && chain you added in recently.
Feel free to apply your patch if you really like it better. 
6 out of 16 lines of my patch are the comment anyway, so it is not
_that_ bad :)

>(And you didn't spot the real bug, either - but it can still be
> fixed by just rewording the if test)

Do you mean the basename(1) and basename(3) inconsistency described
in Bruse Evans message? Or there is something else I am missing?

Should we add something like the following to make FreeBSD basename 
consistent with historic behaviour again?

/*
 * Do not call basename(3) with an empty string because
 * basename(3) is specified to bogotify
 * this case by changing "" to "." and that is
 * not consistent with what basename(1) is supposed to do
 */
if ( argv[0][0]) == '\0') {
	(void)printf("\n");
	exit(0);
}


P.S. All English grammar errors in the above text are mine and
     mine only.

ak03@gte.com (Alexander N. Kabaev) writes:
> >(And you didn't spot the real bug, either - but it can still be
> > fixed by just rewording the if test)
> Do you mean the basename(1) and basename(3) inconsistency described
> in Bruse Evans message? Or there is something else I am missing?

Something else - 'basename filename.ext.ext .ext' doesn't work the way
it should.

> Should we add something like the following to make FreeBSD basename 
> consistent with historic behaviour again?

Yes.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org

> 
> Something else - 'basename filename.ext.ext .ext' doesn't work the way
> it should.
> 
Ah, I see it now. My patch fixed that bug as well despite the fact that I wasn't
even aware it's presence.

Thanks for prompt response!
----------------------------------
E-Mail: Alexander N. Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>
Date: 12-Oct-00
Time: 12:27:41
----------------------------------

Comment 6 Mike Heffner 2001-06-23 06:57:41 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Fixed.