The following reply was made to PR bin/33392; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov@tut.by>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: gnats-admin@NetBSD.org, netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: PR/33392 CVS commit: src/dist/nawk
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:23:14 +0300

 >  | Are you sure about the following?
 >  | 
 >  | @@ -82,10 +82,10 @@
 >  |         void *p;
 >  |         int i, new_count;
 >  | 
 >  | -       if (state < fa->state_count)
 >  | +       if (++state < fa->state_count)
 >  |              return
 >  | 
 >  | I think ++ is unwanted
 >  | 
 >  |  new_count = state + 10;
 >  |  for (i = fa->state_count; i < new_count; ++i) {
 >  |                            ^^^^^
 >  |     ...
 >  |  }
 >  |  fa->state_count = new_count;
 >  
 >  The meaning of state_count has changed from being the largest number
 >  allocated to be the count of the states allocated, so both are correct.
 >  The code now passes all the regression tests. We could change the
 >  ++state, if we change the resize_state calls to be 1 greater than now,
 >  but that is more intrusive.
 
 You are right, both are correct.
 
 Suppose
 1) we are here
     918         /* add tmpset to current set of states */
     919         ++(f->curstat);
 +   920         resize_state(f, f->curstat);
     921         for (i = 0; i < NCHARS; i++)
 2) 100 states was already created and all tables was properly initialized, i.e.
    f->state_count == 2.
 3) f->curstat == 99
 
 1) + 2) + 3) ===> unnecessary memory allocation in resize_state(), just a few kbytes.
   Is there any reason for this?
 
 -- 
 Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.