> On Oct 22, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 10:41 -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2017, at 1:33 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:44:58PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2017 10:55 AM, John Arbuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline size_t strnlen(const char *string, size_t max_count)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + size_t count;
>>>>> + for (count = 0; count < max_count; count++) {
>>>>> + if (string[count] == '\0') {
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + return count;
>>>> Not to nitpick, but
>>>>
>>>> const char *p = memchr(string, 0, max_count);
>>>> return p ? max_count : p - string;
>>> Richard's right, that's definitely a better implementation.
>> His implementation is smaller, but this one is even smaller. Plus it uses the familiar strlen() function:
>>
>> size_t strnlen(const char *string, size_t max_count)
>> {
>> return strlen(string) < max_count ? strlen(string) : max_count;
>> }
>
> That is not a proper implementation of strnlen(), which is not supposed
> to access any source-string bytes beyond max_count.
>
> -- Ian
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/strlen.html
This specification document should help anyone who wants more info.
The first implementation using the loop would never access anything beyond max_count. My second implementation does go beyond max_count. The implementation using memchr() will probably live up the requirement so I guess it wins.
Thank you Ian for this information.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
