Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:55:31 -0800
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] String: expand to word-at-a-time

On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Isaac Dunham <> wrote:

> On Mon,  4 Feb 2013 00:12:14 +0000
> Nathan McSween <> wrote:
>> -int strcmp(const char *l, const char *r)
>> +/**
>> + * strcmp - Word sized c standard strcmp.
>> + * @c: Comparative
>> + * @s: Source
>> + */
> I have a few comments:
> 1: Why "comparative" and "source" instead of left/right?
> Source implies that there's copying going on, which there isn't (at least in terms of the API).
> s1/s2 or l/r is much more understandable.
> 2: For that many lines, you might as well explain what's going on:
> /* Indicate whether string c is less than, greater than, or
> equal to string s */
> The comments are useless without the standard, and superfluous 
> with it.
Just personal preference really. It's nicer imo to have short args names and a blurb on what they stand for

>> +#undef strcmp
> Huh?
> I don't see why this is needed, unless you messed up your build environment.
>> +int strcmp(const char *c, const char *s)
> What's the effect of all this on size of the binary?
> I see that all this ends up adding ~150 lines.
With the expanded to word-at-a-time fns it adds a bit with just the refactorings it removes a bit. Not at my workstation atm though.

> Is shortening the length of the variable names really useful?
Preference, the only reason for the longer names in the args is usually due to say void * to unsigned char * for comparison, etc purposes
> -- 
> Isaac Dunham <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.