On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:34:53PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> Todd C. Miller wrote on Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:28:14AM -0600:
>
> > Now that we have a handy size_t scratch variable,
> > we can use it to store the return value of mbrtowc()
> > instead of storing it in an int. Worth
Hi Todd,
Todd C. Miller wrote on Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:28:14AM -0600:
> Now that we have a handy size_t scratch variable,
> we can use it to store the return value of mbrtowc()
> instead of storing it in an int. Worth it or overkill?
Some interfaces are specifically designed to trap the unwar
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 12:12:02 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> However, in the case at hand, it really helps readability
> in a function (unavoidably) already longer than comfortable
> for reading it.
Now that we have a handy size_t scratch variable, we can use it to
store the return value of mbrtowc
> in 2014, Theo scolded me when i tried to use strnlen(3) at some
> place in mandoc where it wasn't really important, pointing out that
> some systems still didn't have it, and saying: "Let me say simply:
> Yuck." And indeed, i promptly got reports about compile failures
> on Solaris.
Right.
> H
Hi Todd,
in 2014, Theo scolded me when i tried to use strnlen(3) at some
place in mandoc where it wasn't really important, pointing out that
some systems still didn't have it, and saying: "Let me say simply:
Yuck." And indeed, i promptly got reports about compile failures
on Solaris.
However, in
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > if (blah) {
> > size_t len;
> > ...
> > } else {
> > size_t len;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > looks noisy to me, so I would lean towards your latter idea.
>
> Yeah, I just liked len being scoped that way. However, I see other
> places we really want to use a si
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:56:24 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> This:
>
> if (blah) {
> size_t len;
> ...
> } else {
> size_t len;
> ...
> }
>
> looks noisy to me, so I would lean towards your latter idea.
Yeah, I just liked len being scoped that way. However, I see other
places w
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Todd C. Miller
wrote:
> This is what strnlen(3) is for, let's use it...
>
> Alternately, we could unify things like:
>
> len = prec >= 0 ? strnlen(cp, prec) : strlen(cp);
> if (len > INT_MAX)
> goto overflow;
> size = (int)l
This is what strnlen(3) is for, let's use it...
Alternately, we could unify things like:
len = prec >= 0 ? strnlen(cp, prec) : strlen(cp);
if (len > INT_MAX)
goto overflow;
size = (int)len;
but that means declaring "size_t len" at the top of the for(;;) lo
