Stipe Tolj wrote:
Ok, now about the warning. I see this in gw/smsc/smpp_pdu.c:236: ... #define NULTERMINATED(name, max_octets) \ if (p->name != NULL) { \ if (octstr_len(p->name) >= max_octets) { \ warning(0, "SMPP: PDU element <%s> to long " \ "(length is %ld, should be %d)", \ #name, octstr_len(p->name), max_octets); \ temp = octstr_copy(p->name, 0, max_octets-1); \ } else \ temp = octstr_duplicate(p->name); \ octstr_append(os, temp); \ octstr_destroy(temp); \ } \ octstr_append_char(os, '\0'); ...
Which means the warning will go out even when we have the max octets in the pdu field.
Question should be: why do we compare >= and not only > ???
I don't see any good reason on the equal compare here.
ok, confirmed that I have been muggling arround that code, see: http://www.kannel.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gateway/gw/smsc/smpp_pdu.c.diff?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
but I actualy don't see a reason why we shouldn't change the if statement from >= compare to pure > compare.
Any objections here?
Sitpe
mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG
Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
phone: +49.211.74845.0 fax: +49.211.74845.299
mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de http://www.wapme-systems.de/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Cygwin)
mIsEP6mcYwEEAMDnUiUwrbb+xwTFWN6TxF2+XZu7/alwJMeCwMBRvXtPZqfjpPhS OkBpU0F4TrVuugz1HINTSaJTYq10AzDQXp5NkyWgckqW79nPAWuOX0dicbJk+cN2 nM2TI4KaxUDe6u8hghNEnH/i2lXsUu9apnP/iixzV81VC2je3uc9hZpnAAYptEVT dGlwZSBUb2xqIChUZWNobm9sb2d5IENlbnRlciAmIFJlc2VhcmNoIExhYikgPHRv bGpAd2FwbWUtc3lzdGVtcy5kZT6ItAQTAQIAHgUCP6mcYwIbAwYLCQgHAwIDFQID AxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRABV0w1BqPYRuSqA/wPzsQxao2YePENCtgRTrO86U6zg3sl OcS6CJFI4FZP5h/xD3GRsNH1+MPSvZlomDdpFnr547DGz/Kq9MXuQwVvlVig5yWZ K5dtKp1r5YLhxJQBhfirZbRFFnYmf19f18J8OoS28tuFVftDl1AIwJS3HLyBTv6H g2HyLAEKQIp30Q== =aYCI -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
