Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:35:43 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Safe string formatting in the kernel Message-ID: <18369.976606543@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:19:58 %2B1100." <20001212141958.P69646@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20001212141958.P69646@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: >On 2000-Dec-11 20:13:24 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> wrote: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~des/software/sbuf-20001211b.diff > >Overall the purpose of this isn't clear to me. It doesn't appear to >have any real advantages over using the standard string functions. >The main advantage I can see for having a proper set of string >functions would be to support dynamic (growable) strings and sbuf uses a >fixed size buffer. The fixed size buffer is just to keep the initial implementation simple I think. Growable buffers is indeed catered for in the API (that's why the sbuf_finish() function is there. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18369.976606543>