From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Mar 20  1:35: 0 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from hell.branda.to (61-216-80-81.HINET-IP.hinet.net [61.216.80.81])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D777B37B721
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:34:53 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from thinker@branda.to)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
  (uid 1000)
  by hell.branda.to with local; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:37:10 +0000
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:37:10 +0000
From: thinker <thinker@branda.to>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: patch /bin/ls again, for mb supporting.
Message-ID: <20010320173710.A14702@hell.branda.to>
References: <20010320164901.A14424@hell.branda.to> <20010320011246.O29888@fw.wintelcom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010320011246.O29888@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:12:46AM -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:12:46AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
...... skip .......
> > +	size_t sz;
> > +	wchar_t c;
> 
> C has allowed for identifiers larger than 6 characters for quite
> some time, any chance on you making use of this feature?  Or at
> least adding a comment here and there?
Ok.. I would add a comment here and there.
> 
> > +	p = s;
> > +	dc = len = strlen(s);
> > +	ri = r = (char *)malloc(len + 1);
> 
> Where is the check for malloc failing?
Yes, it is good idea. Although, I don't think that we can't alloc
a memory block that less than 256+1 bytes.
> 
> > +	while (dc) {
> > +		sz = mbtowc(&c, p, dc);
> > +		if (sz < 0) {
> > +			p++;
> > +			dc--;
> > +			*ri++ = '?';
> > +		} else {
> > +			dc -= sz;
> > +			if (isprint(c)) {
> > +				while(sz--)
> > +					*ri++ = *p++;
> > +			} else {
> > +				p += sz;
> > +				while(sz--)
> > +					*ri++ = '?';
> 
> Why didn't you use strlcpy/memcpy as suggested?
As I can see, most codeset don't use more any 4 bytes to represent
a character. For proformance reason, strlcpy/memcpy is not a good
choice. For easy reading, I don't which one is better. For size,
I think function call is more expensive. If we use strlcpy/memcpy,
it mean we use strlcpy/memcpy to copy a block of memory that less
than 4 bytes. I don't think it is good example to demo strlcpy/memcpy.

> 
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	*ri = 0;
> 
>         *ri = '\0';
For easy reading?? ok..
> 
> > +	printf("%s", r);
> > +	free(r);
> > +	return len;
> 
> return (len);
> 
...... skip ..........

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message