On 18 Feb 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What exactly do you want to do here ? I'm not clear what > you mean?
The thing I noticed is that StrCaseCmp (and indeed many charcnv function) truncate strings to 1024 characters. I got here following a Valgrind assertion which may or may not be related, but it certainly seems like a bug. What I was proposing in the first instance was to use talloced or malloced buffers rather than a fixed 1024 byte space. There are already some charcnv routines that do this and in any case it is straightforward to do it for other cases using the standard measure-allocate-copy method. Andrew expressed concern that allocating buffers would be inefficient, but these functions are already extremely inefficient so I don't think an extra malloc would matter. In fact, it's worse, because unix_strupper (for example) uses a 1024-*byte* buffer to hold a UCS2 string. I don't think it will overflow, but it will truncate any strings that pass through down to 512 characters. It's not so hard to imagine a 512-character string. Basically I just wanted to push on with moving away from pstrings/fstrings, which I understood from Andrew & Tim to be the current direction. -- Martin
