(PLease, avoid top-posting on this list)
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 11:57:25PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Torsten. I was working on improving the rest of
> sideband.c as you suggested when I encountered this snippet on line 82:
>
> while (0 < n && isspace(*src)) {
> strbuf_addch(dest, *src);
> src++;
> n--;
> }
>
> Here, we are decreasing the value of an unsigned type to potentially below
> 0 which may lead to overflow and result in some nasty bug. In this case,
> is it wise to continue with replacing 'int n' with 'size_t n' as the
> NEEDSWORK tag suggests or should we improve upon the rest of the file
> and revert 'size_t n' to 'int n' ?
Yes, that could be a solution.
But.
In general, we are are striving to use size_t for all objects that live in
memory, and that is a long term thing.
Careful review is needed, and that is what you just did.
If we look at this code again:
while (0 < n && isspace(*src)) {
strbuf_addch(dest, *src);
src++;
n--;
}
When n is signed, it makes sense to use "0 < n".
However, if I think about it, it should work for unsigned as well,
wouldn't it ?
We can leave it as is, or replace it by
while (n && isspace(*src)) {
strbuf_addch(dest, *src);
src++;
n--;
}
>
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 23:27, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 05:01:09PM +0000, Chandra Pratap via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > From: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Replace int with size_t for clarity and remove the
> > > 'NEEDSWORK' tag associated with it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > sideband.c: replace int with size_t for clarity
> > >
> > > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1625%2FChand-ra%2Fdusra-v1
> > > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1625/Chand-ra/dusra-v1
> > > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1625
> > >
> > > sideband.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/sideband.c b/sideband.c
> > > index 6cbfd391c47..1599e408d1b 100644
> > > --- a/sideband.c
> > > +++ b/sideband.c
> > > @@ -69,9 +69,8 @@ void list_config_color_sideband_slots(struct string_list *list, const char *pref
> > > * of the line. This should be called for a single line only, which is
> > > * passed as the first N characters of the SRC array.
> > > *
> > > - * NEEDSWORK: use "size_t n" instead for clarity.
> > > */
> > > -static void maybe_colorize_sideband(struct strbuf *dest, const char *src, int n)
> > > +static void maybe_colorize_sideband(struct strbuf *dest, const char *src, size_t n)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for working on this.
> > There is, however, more potential for improvements.
> > First of all: the "int i" from above.
> > Further down, we read
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(keywords); i++) {
> >
> > However, a size of an array can never be negative, so that
> > an unsigned data type is a better choice than a signed.
> > And, arrays can have more elements than an int can address,
> > at least in theory.
> > For a reader it makes more sense, to replace
> > int i;
> > with
> > size_t i;
> >
> >
> > And further down, there is another place for improvments:
> >
> > int len = strlen(p->keyword);
> > if (n < len)
> > continue;
> >
> > Even here, a strlen is never negative. And a size_t is the choice for len,
> > since all "modern" implementations declare strlen() to return size_t
> >
> > Do you think that you can have a look at these changes ?
> >
> > I will be happy to do a review, and possibly other people as well.
>
