Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:09:42 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: patch: make the size of errbuf configurable On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 05:51:05PM -0400, Z. Gilboa wrote: > >My preference is that either long pathnames should be truncated in a > >reasonable way (keep in mind that the message is *not* parsable by the > >caller; the only way it can be used is presenting it to the user) > certainly; the initial motivation was log-file processing. > > >or > >larger buffers should be dynamically allocated. The only reason I did > >not go the dynamic-allocation path to begin with was to make it so > >non-thread-safe usage of dlerror yields (at worst) corrupted messages > >rather than crashes. This can also be achieved with dynamic allocation > >(as long as the old too-short buffer is never freed), but it's more > >complex. > > In my understanding, the current approach of having a fixed buffer > size is by far the superior one. Could you elaborate as to why? Are you concerned about memory usage? Code complexity? Or some other reason? Rich
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.