Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:23:18 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: "Andrey Simonenko" <simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Staticaly allocated buffers in library. Is it correct? Message-ID: <200102191723.f1JHNII37074@earth.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102171202110.400-100000@scorpion.cosmos.all.net> <96rash$1m1d$1@igloo.uran.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:So, if I send problem report with my patches, I should inherit usage of
:staticaly allocated buffers.
:Am I right?
:
:milunovic <milunovic@sendmail.ru> wrote in message
:news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0102171202110.400-100000@scorpion.cosmos.all.net...
:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:>
:> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
:>
:> > I patched some library files and noted that some functions, which parse
:some
:> > configuration files, use staticaly allocated buffers. Sizes of such
:> > staticaly allocated buffers are 8k, 10k and so on. These buffers are
:used to
:> > hold one line from parsed file. Usually it is enough for one line, but
:...
Yes. System libraries traditionally use statically allocated buffers
because, even now, there is no dynamic equivalent for fgets(). The
closest you can get is to mmap() the file and extract the lines that
way.
But as long as the buffer sizes are reasonable and the library uses
fgets() with the proper length limitation, using a statically allocated
buffer is not a big deal. Most configuration files couldn't have long
lines and still be legal anyway.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102191723.f1JHNII37074>