Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 19:22:09 -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 06:26:04PM -0400, Z. Gilboa wrote: > >>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? > A little bit of both, with complexity being the main factor. As far > as I can tell (from looking at dynlink.c and otherwise), there is > only one case (do_relocs) where both the library name and symbol > name are sent to the buffer. So given the case's rarity and > singularity, I would not introduce "complex" code or memory > allocation into the function. We should also remember that this is > not about how the error is being handled, only about how it is being > presented, meaning that less code is probably better... >From what I can see, complexity can be avoided and maybe even reduced by refactoring the code so that all the places that set an error message call a short simple function that wraps snprintf and allocates a new buffer if needed. The complexity reduction would be if we can eliminate duplicate logic at each call point, which I haven't checked yet. 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.