Commited. Thanks.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Benjamin Baier wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a
lot to gain from overflow protection given the numbers used in these
calculations are
bump.
anybody?
On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:29:42 +0200
Benjamin Baier program...@netzbasis.de wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a lot
to
gain from overflow protection given the
This one splits up the malloc parameter, taking full potential from calloc,
hurting readability a bit.
which one is preferred? more readable/maintainable or using the calloc overflow
protection?
Index: bootstrap.c
===
RCS file:
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Benjamin Baier wrote:
This one splits up the malloc parameter, taking full potential from calloc,
hurting readability a bit. which one is preferred? more
readable/maintainable or using the calloc overflow protection?
In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 00:57:43 +1000
Joel Sing j...@sing.id.au wrote:
In this case I think readability wins. I do not believe that there is a lot
to
gain from overflow protection given the numbers used in these calculations
are very small (and many are already bounds checked in some form or
