Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:09:53 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] importing e* (embolic, estrdup, etc) functions from NetBSD (libc/libutil or libnetbsd)? Message-ID: <20151019220953.GC64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <94056.1445291412@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <74F6DD3C-42F6-490B-A08E-245A1338A3E7@gmail.com> <CAPyFy2AuDPL4qgawfaRhyWA1dp=29VfFBAdi06ygZ2UABB=D3Q@mail.gmail.com> <20151019212750.GB64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <94056.1445291412@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:50:12PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <20151019212750.GB64504@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>, Brooks Da= vis writes: >=20 > >This feels like the right approach to me as well. >=20 > I looked at it at one point and I found it seriously lacking. By "This" I ment, sticking them in libnetbsd. For code we don't actively maintain, I'd rather pick up some extra funcitions in libnetbsd than convert the code to match our prefered mechanism unless there's a good reason to. > The philosophy seems to be "just stick 'e' in front and you're done" > but in practice that is not even close. If one wanted this approach, a libc replacment that fails stop on unrecoverable errors might be more interesting approach (somwhat with different, but still signficant limitations). > The *real* problem they're trying to solve is safe string handling, > and the e* functions only cover a small corner area of that space. >=20 > Their implemenation also seems half-hearted in many ways. For > instance they have not specified what happens if the error handler > returns to the e* function. > > And finally, C-with-exceptions ? Really ? >=20 > I far prefer sbuf(3) to e*(3) For our code, I think I agree. -- Brooks --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWJWoxAAoJEKzQXbSebgfACL8IAI0COG1Myk/g9g3DoQ1ZESAk 0gsLseQvEatDNcGgFpDSF24+awe8Vm2H8QnZHlHS1YUxeIsWvaLfEjKHKRaRLVyE 9yLw8zWRmaqR4RrDxCbS5COFTK3m043TfW6ugVRNTGgFkHXVYHlBvjsFwz9RGYRb MhOKJqvtQOSEq3ZINwVNQj0WnBlse5JipUg8r0cDBMfmE3kSzEvWtIkhnie78iKL f+dkw8k/QCQb1zA+xDrAwqLenW6+TSfThUkU+ACamleFI0d+rcg7S+yfezZKpm3z TtHPO4WYaZSD28PxrZ7e4c2mSYkYSFd8PIBVbPliwZ9S66vrDDUr+1K+tYOJgW0= =SOhk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151019220953.GC64504>