Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:04:38 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: ithilgore <ithilgore.fbsd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c Message-ID: <20080226040438.GA2676@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <47BFF74E.4010608@gmail.com> References: <47BFF17B.5080205@gmail.com> <47BFF74E.4010608@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2008-02-23 02:37, ithilgore <ithilgore.fbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>ithilgore wrote:
>> I was looking at the differences between some old FreeBSD code
>> and the one of 7.0-RC1 and was wondering about a change
>> in inet_ntoa.c
>>
>> /***** 7.0-RC1 **************/
>>
>> sprintf(buf, "%d.%d.%d.%d",
>> ucp[0] & 0xff,
>> ucp[1] & 0xff,
>> ucp[2] & 0xff,
>> ucp[3] & 0xff);
>>
>>
>> /****** 4.11-RELEASE ***********/
>>
>>
>> static const char fmt[] = "%u.%u.%u%u";
>> if ((size_t)snprintf(dst, size, fmt, src[0], src[1], src[2], src[3])
>> >= size) {
>> ....
>> ....
>>
>> Was there a specific purpose of changing the more easy and simple way
>> of %u instead of the combination of %d and and-ing with 0xff ??
>> It essentially gives the same result but increases overhead (i think) in
>> the more
>> recent version.
>
> I just noticed I made a mistake. The second code is libc's version of
> inet_ntoa. But the question still counts. Why not use the plain
> simpler version of libc ?
I don't see ucp[] in RELENG_6, RELENG_7 or CURRENT. Where did you get
the version shown as `7.0-RC1' above?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080226040438.GA2676>