On 2016-08-06 at 01:44:42 +0200, Vadim Kochan <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> > On 2016-07-26 at 21:35:11 +0200, Vadim Kochan <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +static inline unsigned int field_rand(struct proto_field *field)
> > > +{
> > > + return field->func.min + (rand() % ((field->func.max - field->func.min)
> > > + 1));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void field_rnd_func(struct proto_field *field)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int val = field_rand(field);
> > > +
> > > + if (field->len == 1) {
> > > + proto_field_set_u8(field->hdr, field->id, (uint8_t) val);
> > > + } else if (field->len == 2) {
> > > + proto_field_set_be16(field->hdr, field->id, (uint16_t) val);
> > > + } else if (field->len == 4) {
> > > + proto_field_set_be32(field->hdr, field->id, (uint32_t) val);
> > > + } else if (field->len > 4) {
> > > + uint8_t *bytes = __proto_field_get_bytes(field);
> > > + uint32_t i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < field->len; i++, val = field_rand(field))
> > > + bytes[i] = (uint8_t) val;
> >
> > No need for the assigment of `val' in the loop, should rather be like
> > this:
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < field->len; i++)
> > bytes[i] = (uint8_t) field_rand(field);
> > > + }
>
> I did so because field_rand(field) was calculated at the beginning so in
> the loop it will be calculated only on the next round. Do you think it
> is not needed ?
IMO it's easy to overread the val assignment in the for statement as it
is not such a common pattern. We'd not even save the call to
field_rand(), so I think it's worth to have this explicitely stated in
the loop body rather than the for(...) statement.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to netsniff-ng+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
