To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
User vq changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
Status|NEW |STARTED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 21 07:25:03 +0000
2008 -------
Oh, and did you get enough coffee lately?
> ... Firstly, slen += slen + len-cell->len + 128. Wtf?
That wouldn't compile if it really were in the code.
Ah yes, you clearly understood what "the persons behind this code" were
planning.
> The condition (len > slen_rest) is bogus. slen_rest is irrelevant here.
..
> However, there is no real reason for that "extra" 128. It seems that the
> persons behind this code were aware that there is something wrong with it,
> but didn't quite know what, so they throw in an "extra" 127 bytes and hope
> for the best.
There is no hidden agenda, only a bug. If the code would have worked as intended
it would have gotten more memory as needed to accommodate for future memory
needs of *result and hereby reduced the number of needed realloc() calls at the
expense of a little memory overhead - Yes a little questionable but IMHO valid.
I will fix this bug and you might sometime have a look into issue 65083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
