Hi, 2011/12/19 Xin LI <delphij at gmail.com>: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mike Tancsa <mike at sentex.net> wrote: >> Are there any security reasons as to why Dont know but the ld_printerror != '\0' in the patch should be *ld_printerror != '\0', no? ~clem