[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
