Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/13/2010 12:19 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> + size_t sz = input_blocksize + INPUT_BLOCK_SLOP;
>> + real_buf = malloc (sz);
>> + if (!real_buf)
>> + error (EXIT_FAILURE, 0,
>> + _("failed to allocate an input buffer of size %s"),
>> + human_size (sz));
>
> Wouldn't it be better to output the exact buffer size,
> rather than an approximation? Usually it's better to
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the feedback.
I debated that, but figured that most of the time
people would realize what has gone wrong (number too large).
> output more information, rather than less, to help
> debug problems more precisely.
>
> One way to do this would be to output the same string
> that the user specified: if the user says "bs=3EiB" then
That would be best, but as you see above, it's not the same
number, since what we try to allocate is larger by INPUT_BLOCK_SLOP.
> output "3EiB" in the diagnostic. That would be exact,
> and would be a bit friendlier than "3458764513820540928 bytes".
> Or, we could output both, as in "3EiB (3458764513820540928 bytes)",
> where the first is the string and the second is the integer that
> we converted it to.
That would be an improvement, indeed.
I've gone ahead and pushed the patch above.
You're welcome to patch further.
