[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130519232209.GK20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
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.
