Commited. Thanks.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Benjamin Baier wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
>
> Joel Sing wrote:
> > In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a
> > lot to gain from overflow protection given the numbers used in these
> > calculations are very small
bump.
anybody?
On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:29:42 +0200
Benjamin Baier wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
> Joel Sing wrote:
> > In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a lot
> > to
> > gain from overflow protection given the numbers used in these calculations
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
Joel Sing wrote:
> In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a lot
> to
> gain from overflow protection given the numbers used in these calculations
> are very small (and many are already bounds checked in some form or other).
Well,
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Benjamin Baier wrote:
> This one splits up the malloc parameter, taking full potential from calloc,
> hurting readability a bit. which one is preferred? more
> readable/maintainable or using the calloc overflow protection?
In this case I think readability wins. I do not believ
This one splits up the malloc parameter, taking full potential from calloc,
hurting readability a bit.
which one is preferred? more readable/maintainable or using the calloc overflow
protection?
Index: bootstrap.c
===
RCS file: /cvs
