On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:54:59AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > In the general case you need: > > > > found = *next ? next + 1 : next; > > > > or similar. In this case, you can actually do: > > > > found = next; > > > > because we know that it's OK to search over the literal space again. > > But that's pretty subtle, so we're probably better off just doing the > > conditional above. > > > > (And yes, looking at the existing code, I think it's even worse, as > > there does not seem to be a guarantee that we even have 16 characters > > in the string). > > The existing code works only on expected output and the same is true > for the version after this patch. Making the parser robust against > random input would imho be a sort of cleanup patch on top of my > series. .. or before, in which case i would become responsible for > making sure that still works after my modification. > This argument is twofold. I do not really want to fix that as well and > it might be a good idea to separate concerns anyways. I think it's worth addressing in the near term, if only because this kind of off-by-one is quite subtle, and I don't want to forget to deal with it. Whether that happens as part of this patch, or as a cleanup before or after, I'm not picky. :) -Peff
