forked from commonmark/cmark
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
fix: Links with unique targets should have unique labels #307
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c262f15
fix: DLinks with unique targets should have unique labels
smockle 1f30fbb
fix: Use 'written_footnote_ix' (index) in place of named tag
smockle 4cc5541
fix: Use 'written_footnote_ix' (index) in place of named tag in subse…
smockle 388ddec
feat: Output index in a data attribute
smockle File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just as a note, my concern would be about snprintf implementations that don't nul terminate properly. If it were possible to get a 32byte width integer value out of the backref indexes (highly unlikely imo), we are not guaranteed a nul terminated string in m, which may lead to memory info leaks as cmark_strbuf_puts is strlen based (i.e. it will think len is 32 + whatever offset the first nul byte is located in adjacent memory). AFAICT everything that we build against in our test matrix is C99 conformant (but e.g. old visual studio versions pre-2015 were not iirc). /cc @kevinbackhouse for thoughts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we wanted to be abundantly careful re: C99 compliance we could maybe do something like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As per @kevinbackhouse %d is not able to print an integer of that width, so this should be fine.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for raising this, @anticomputer! To clarify, by “this should be fine”, did you mean that the code in this PR is fine as-is, or that the snippet you provided above sufficiently addresses the issue you noted?
I’m happy to go with whatever you recommend. Should we change this elsewhere? I was following the examples below, and I don’t know C or this codebase well enough to understand if these are categorically different in some way:
cmark-gfm/src/html.c
Lines 74 to 75 in eb32891
and
cmark-gfm/src/html.c
Lines 432 to 433 in eb32891