On 02/16/2018 09:03 AM, Philippe Coval wrote: > > On 02/16/2018 04:04 PM, Mats Wichmann wrote: >> Just to get some clarity on this ... >> >> Yesterday I proposed fixes for a few buffer size problems reported by >> static analysis (valgrind). >> >> In commenting, George Nash noted that in some cases I had added >> oic_string.h in order to use OICStrcpy, but that oic_string.h is not >> part of the public API. > good valid point >> So just the three questions this time: >> 1. is that intentional? oic_string.h definitely not part of the API? > well It's not my part, but I suppose it was created to track internal > allocs > does it make sense to do mix applications allocations and library ones ?
the oic_string functions don't do that (well, the strdup equivalent does call OICMalloc, but that *is* part of the public API), they just try to be a little more cautious about buffer bounds. _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
