<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - race condition issue?" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69845#c11">Comment # 11</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - race condition issue?" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69845">bug 69845</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:akira@tagoh.org" title="Akira TAGOH <akira@tagoh.org>"> Akira TAGOH</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=69845#c10">comment #10</a>) > Why this change: > > - memset (new->map, '\0', sizeof (new->map)); > - memcpy (new->map, ls->map, FC_MIN (sizeof (new->map), ls->map_size * > sizeof (ls->map[0]))); > + memcpy (new->map, ls->map, sizeof (ls->map)); > > It's wrong. unrelated to this matter but isn't it a duplicate? is there any assumption that the size of new->map and ls->map is different? map_size is always set to NUM_LANG_SET_MAP and no reallocation on map too. hmm, architecture related thing? that said we have separate caches per architectures. there shouldn't be the case which we deal with different size of FcChar32. That would be appreciated if you can explain a bit so that I may missing something else.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>