Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * strbuf_splice replace a portion of the buffer with another.
> * strbuf_embed replace a strbuf buffer with the given one, that should be
> malloc'ed. Then it enforces strbuf's invariants. If alloc > len, then this
> function has negligible cost, else it will perform a realloc, possibly
> with a cost.
"embed" does not sound quite right, does it? It is a reverse
operation of strbuf_detach() as far as I can tell.
> -void strbuf_rtrim(struct strbuf *sb)
> -{
> +void strbuf_rtrim(struct strbuf *sb) {
> while (sb->len > 0 && isspace((unsigned char)sb->buf[sb->len - 1]))
> sb->len--;
> sb->buf[sb->len] = '\0';
This is changing the style in the wrong direction, isn't it? We
start our functions like this:
type name(proto)
{
...
> +void strbuf_splice(struct strbuf *sb, size_t pos, size_t len,
> + const void *data, size_t dlen)
> +{
> + if (pos + len < pos)
> + die("you want to splice outside from the buffer");
That is a funny error message for an integer wrap-around check.
> + if (pos > sb->len)
> + pos = sb->len;
Shouldn't this be flagged as a programming error?
> + if (pos + len > sb->len)
> + len = sb->len - pos;
Likewise.
By the way, this is the kind of situation I wish everybody wrote
their comparison in textual order. I had to draw a picture like
this to see what was going on.
sb->buf
xxxxxxxxxxxzzzzzxxxxxxxxxxx\0
^ ^
0 sb->len
^ ^ ^ ^
pos pos+len pos pos+len
v v
yyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyy
^ ^
dlen dlen
------------- --------------
pos < sb->len sb->len < pos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
