On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:57:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> Ondrej Zajicek wrote on 2010/04/29 23:15:22:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > Ondrej, this looks buggy:
> > >
> > > +static inline void htonlsab(void *h, void *n, u16 len) {
Ondrej Zajicek wrote on 2010/04/30 10:19:15:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:57:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Ondrej Zajicek wrote on 2010/04/29 23:15:22:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ondrej, this looks buggy:
> > > >
>
Hello!
> Yes, it is unlikely but if that were to happen you will have
> a very hard time finding the problem as the real cause would
> not be visible and only on some platform/gcc version.
... or add an ASSERT.
> Sure, but I am not sure if pointer references are covered fully by C.
This case is
Martin Mares wrote on 2010/04/30 14:51:41:
>
> Hello!
>
> > Yes, it is unlikely but if that were to happen you will have
> > a very hard time finding the problem as the real cause would
> > not be visible and only on some platform/gcc version.
>
> ... or add an ASSERT.
hmm, why bomb out when not
Hello!
> hmm, why bomb out when not needed?
It does not matter. It must not occur in production versions either,
it should exist only as a warning for developers during testing.
Have a nice fortnight
--
Martin `MJ' Mares http://mj.ucw.
Martin Mares wrote on 2010/04/30 15:25:20:
> From: Martin Mares
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: bird-us...@trubka.network.cz, Ondrej Zajicek
> Date: 2010/04/30 15:25
> Subject: Re: Xtonlsab bug
>
> Hello!
>
> > hmm, why bomb out when not needed?
>
> It does not matter. It must not occur in pro
Ondrej Zajicek wrote on 2010/04/30 10:19:15:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:57:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Ondrej Zajicek wrote on 2010/04/29 23:15:22:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ondrej, this looks buggy:
> > > >
>
Hello!
> Pehaps this it is always safe to use memcpy in this case, but the man
> page doesn't.
Neither it is allowed by the C standard.
> It is also a waste of cycles as the whole op is a NOP.
Sure -- that's why we have split the copying and in-place conversion.
Martin Mares wrote on 2010/04/30 16:39:00:
>
> Hello!
>
> > Pehaps this it is always safe to use memcpy in this case, but the man
> > page doesn't.
>
> Neither it is allowed by the C standard.
>
> > It is also a waste of cycles as the whole op is a NOP.
>
> Sure -- that's why we have split the cop
Martin Mares wrote on 2010/04/29 22:14:16:
>
> Hello!
>
> > `flex' scans your rule actions to determine whether you use the
> > `REJECT' or `yymore()' features. The `REJECT' and `yymore' options are
> > available to override its decision as to whether you use the options,
> > either by setting th
10 matches
Mail list logo
