yes, need to revise the comments. I though as much, I have to redo not edit the patch.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Petr Machata <[email protected]> wrote: > BTW, I dropped the Debian bugbot from CC. > > Mike Dupont <[email protected]> writes: > >> @@ -207,8 +202,8 @@ param_printf_next(struct param_enum *sel >> continue; >> >> case '*': >> - /* Length parameter given in the next >> - * argument. */ >> + /* Min or max Length parameter given in the next >> + * argument depending on position. */ > > I don't understand the intention behind this commentary change. > (Also, s/Length/length/.) > >> if (self->future_length == NULL) >> /* This should really be an assert, >> * but we can't just fail on invalid >> @@ -229,8 +224,6 @@ param_printf_next(struct param_enum *sel >> /* Field length likewise, but we need to parse >> * this to attach the appropriate string >> * length expression. */ >> - if (len_buf_len < sizeof(len_buf) - 1) >> - len_buf[len_buf_len++] = *self->ptr; > > The comment is not accurate anymore. I think you can move all the > numeric cases up in the switch alongside the '#', ' ' etc. > > Looks good otherwise. > > Thanks, > Petr -- James Michael DuPont Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas http://openkansas.us Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
