Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:21:16 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/ln & WARNS=5 Message-ID: <20020715112116.GE50130@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <xzp1ya59r5r.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzpele59w21.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020715202126.S40071-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020715111436.GD50130@hades.hell.gr> <xzp1ya59r5r.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-07-15 13:17 +0000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > My intuition was that size_t being unsigned won't require truncation
> > of the (int) return value... But if one wanted to explicitly make
> > both a check for (-1) and the return value being less than the size of
> > the buffer would the following be more proper?
>
> Looks good to me, apart from the extra parentheses around the argument
> to sizeof.
/me picks up notebook to learn a bit :)
What's wrong with sizeof(...)? I thought that style(9) was actually
encouraging the use of parentheses for the arguments of sizeof, when
it mentioned:
Casts and sizeof's are not followed by a space. Note that
indent(1) does not understand this rule.
- Giorgos
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020715112116.GE50130>