On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:11:27PM +0600, NRK wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> > Uh, I didn't realize about it, I just saw that having 255 entries was
> > wrong ^^!!!.
> > I think the best approach is to split the commit in two and
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> Uh, I didn't realize about it, I just saw that having 255 entries was
> wrong ^^!!!.
> I think the best approach is to split the commit in two and evaluate/review
> them isolated; one commit to fix the size, and
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 03:16:56AM +0600, NRK wrote:
> But yes, you're right, you'd need 256 elements to be able to index into
> an array as any unsigned char. So maybe it *should* be 256.
Uh, I didn't realize about it, I just saw that having 255 entries was wrong
^^!!!.
I think the
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 09:44:35PM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> I meant 256. If you want to be able to use any unsigned char as index
> in the array then you need 256 positions, from 0 to 255. The patch
> also had that wrong.
>
> Also, the comment of the patch only stayed that it
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 08:25:09PM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:30:52PM +0600, NRK wrote:
> > +static const char base64_digits[(unsigned char)-1] = {
>
> Any reason to write "(unsigned char)-1" instead of writing 256?
Didn't hardcode 255 for pedantic
On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 20:25:09 +0100
"Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
Dear Roberto,
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:30:52PM +0600, NRK wrote:
> > +static const char base64_digits[(unsigned char)-1] = {
>
> Any reason to write "(unsigned char)-1" instead of writing 256?
char is not guaranteed
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 04:30:52PM +0600, NRK wrote:
> +static const char base64_digits[(unsigned char)-1] = {
Any reason to write "(unsigned char)-1" instead of writing 256?
Regards,
