On 14.08.2015 01:25, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:07:49 +0200: >> On 12.08.2015 00:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>>>> We have had problems with both styles in the past, so neither is immune >>>>> to bugs. I prefer the explicit type as it is easier to grep. >>>> The explicit type form is more accident-prone than the variable form >>>> because any change requires two modifications in the same statement >>>> instead of one. >>> Why doesn't the compiler or buildbot catch accidents? >> I can't imagine a way for the compiler to emit warnings for such >> constructs without getting a far too large percentage of false >> positives. It's perfectly valid, and in many cases required by some >> object-like architecture, to allocate a buffer that has a different size >> than the one implied by the pointer that stores the return value. This >> is C, after all. >> > Okay, so from the compiler authors' perspective, "allocation size mismatches > pointed-to-object size" warnings should not be on by default. Fair enough. > But from our perspective as Subversion maintainers, we never *intentionally* > allocate a buffer smaller than the pointed-to object, so the warnings would be > useful to us. We should therefore opt-in to them.
Smaller buffer, probably not. Larger, definitely. -- Brane