From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  7 21:12:25 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F11380B;
 Thu,  7 Feb 2013 21:12:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jilles@stack.nl)
Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay02.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::104])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40622E04;
 Thu,  7 Feb 2013 21:12:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from snail.stack.nl (snail.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::131])
 by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F91358C55;
 Thu,  7 Feb 2013 22:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: by snail.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1677)
 id 8020E2848C; Thu,  7 Feb 2013 22:12:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 22:12:22 +0100
From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] open_memstream() and open_wmemstream()
Message-ID: <20130207211222.GA98989@stack.nl>
References: <201302051546.43839.jhb@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201302051546.43839.jhb@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:12:25 -0000

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:46:43PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> I've written an implementation of open_memstream() and
> open_wmemstream() along with a set of regression tests.  I'm pretty
> sure open_memstream() is correct, and I believe open_wmemstream() is
> correct for expected usage.  The latter might even do the right thing
> if you split a multi-byte character across multiple writes.  One
> question I have is if my choice to discard any pending multi-byte
> state in the stream anytime a seek changes the effective position in
> the output stream.  I think this is correct as stdio will flush any
> pending data before doing a seek, so if there is a partially parsed
> character we aren't going to get the rest of it.

I don't think partially parsed characters can happen with a correct
application. As per C99, an application must not call byte output
functions on a wide-oriented stream, and vice versa.

Discarding the shift state on fseek()/fseeko() is permitted (but should
be documented as this is implementation-defined behaviour).
State-dependent encodings (where this is relevant) are rarely used
nowadays.

The conversion to bytes and back probably makes open_wmemstream() quite
slow but I don't think that is very important.

> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/open_memstream.patch

The seek functions should check for overflow in the addition (for
SEEK_CUR and SEEK_END) and the conversion to size_t.

-- 
Jilles Tjoelker