From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 26 04:18:18 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E7916A408
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:18:18 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr)
Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9513C478
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:18:17 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr)
Received: from kobe.laptop (adsl92-189.kln.forthnet.gr [77.49.59.189])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by igloo.linux.gr (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with ESMTP id m1Q44dQU016718;
	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:04:45 +0200
Received: by kobe.laptop (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 90D5522802; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:04:38 +0200 (EET)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:04:38 +0200
From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>
To: ithilgore <ithilgore.fbsd@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080226040438.GA2676@kobe.laptop>
References: <47BFF17B.5080205@gmail.com> <47BFF74E.4010608@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47BFF74E.4010608@gmail.com>
X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
	score=-3.925, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80,
	AWL 0.47, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:18:18 -0000

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?