Hi Roberto,
> If we go to increase that size, I would go to use dynamic memory. Having
> an array of 1MB statically allocated is a crazy idea
Yes it is!
> (and it is not C99 compliant, where the maximun allocated size is 128K).
That's actually 64k (“at least […] — 65535 bytes in an object (in
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:05 AM Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 05:45:29PM -0700, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> > I agree that the current buffer is too small. I'm pretty sure I've run
> > into this problem myself with Vim and Bash, but I hadn't gotten around
> > to digging
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 05:45:29PM -0700, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> I agree that the current buffer is too small. I'm pretty sure I've run
> into this problem myself with Vim and Bash, but I hadn't gotten around
> to digging into the problem.
If we go to increase that size, I would go to use dynamic
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:16:31PM +0200, Ingo Heimbach wrote:
> I have recognized that a buffer size of 128*4 bytes is quite small to
> store base64 encoded clipboard content (see OSC52), especially when
> copying multiple code lines in a terminal editor like vim.
I agree that the current buffer
I have recognized that a buffer size of 128*4 bytes is quite small to store
base64 encoded clipboard content (see OSC52), especially when copying multiple
code lines in a terminal editor like vim. 1048576 is 1 mega of 4 byte UTF-8
characters. It is quite big but I simply chose a value that
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:52:41 +0100
"Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote:
Dear Roberto,
> I would say, why 1048576 and not 1000? or 1?.
> Is there a specific reason?
1048576 is 2^20, so it's not completely arbitrary, though the point
really stands as to why there's such a huge jump in size.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Ingo Heimbach wrote:
> What is incorrect?
I would say, why 1048576 and not 1000? or 1?.
Is there a specific reason?
Roberto
What is incorrect?
Am 23. September 2018 14:12:23 MESZ schrieb Hiltjo Posthuma
:
>On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:12:27PM +0200, Ingo Heimbach wrote:
>> Before this commit, long escape sequences (e.g. OSC 52) could be
>trimmed
>> due to a quite small escape sequence buffer. This commit increases
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:12:27PM +0200, Ingo Heimbach wrote:
> Before this commit, long escape sequences (e.g. OSC 52) could be trimmed
> due to a quite small escape sequence buffer. This commit increases the
> escape sequence buffer from 128 to 1048576 UTF-8 characters.
> ---
> st.c | 2 +-
>
