On Sunday 06 September 2009 07:11:53 Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Sunday 06 September 2009 08:26, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 05 September 2009 18:45:41 Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > include/rpc/types.h declares > > > #ifndef MAXHOSTNAMELEN > > > #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 > > > #endif > > > > > > while include/netdb.h declares > > > # define NI_MAXHOST 1025 > > > > > > (1) It probably would be better if we have internally consistent > > > idea how big a hostname we allow. > > > > > > (2) NI_MAXHOST is too big. Do we really need to support > > > hostnames which are about ten times longer than avevare > > > screen line? We have a global data object in libc/inet/rpc/rexec.c > > > declared as "char ahostbuf[NI_MAXHOST]". This eats 1kb of bss. > > > > > > I think we can set NI_MAXHOST to 128 with no danger > > > of breaking things, or maybe even to 64. > > > > i dont think these defines really mean the same thing. things to > > consider: - rexec (rpc) code is taken from glibc > > - the defines we have match glibc > > - rpc code in the C library is a dead concept (use libtirpc) > > - really shouldnt bother "improving" dead code > > > > with these in mind, i think the code remain the same. if you concerned > > about RPC bloat on your system, move over to libtirpc. > > -mike > > I just don't want shared uclibc to put 1k hostname buffer into bss > of every running program. 1k for a *hostname*? that's nuts. > > Maybe we can leave NI_MAXHOST as-is, but cheat a bit > and make char ahostbuf[] smaller than NI_MAXHOST?
i agree it sucks, but for an interface that: - we dont really want to extend anymore - doesnt really have any official interface documentation - has a lot of backdoor symbols - coding style blows i think we should just let it lie -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc