Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:20:47 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? Message-ID: <20001213152046.B84135@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0800 References: <35886.976734714@critter> <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote: > :>:a second" is subject to some debate... > :>:A good API saves many programming and debugging hours. > :> > :> I grepped through and looked at every sprintf, strcpy, and strcat > :> in the kernel. It is *NOT* a big deal. It is certainly a hellofalot > :> less work to convert those to snprintf/strlcpy/etc then to convert > :> them to sbuf. > : > :I don't recall anybody mentioning much less suggesting a wholesale > :rewrite of every string operation in the kernel... > : > :-- > :Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > > What's the point of creating a new interface in the kernel for > string handling if you don't intend to use it? > > -Matt I agree 100%. If we aren't going to whole-sale convert to it then all we are doing is bloating the kernel (remember, it still has to fit on a floppy). 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?20001213152046.B84135>