On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:06:39AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > Index: src/lib/libc/stdio/fmemopen.c
> > diff -u src/lib/libc/stdio/fmemopen.c:1.3 src/lib/libc/stdio/fmemopen.c:1.4
> > --- src/lib/libc/stdio/fmemopen.c:1.3 Sat Sep 25 14:00:30 2010
> > +++ src/lib/libc/stdio/fmemopen.c Mon Sep 27 16:50:13 2010
> > @@ -79,16 +79,18 @@
> > if (p->cur >= p->tail)
> > return 0;
> > s = p->cur;
> > - t = p->tail - 1;
> > do {
> > - if (p->cur == t) {
> > - if (*buf == '\0')
> > - *p->cur++ = *buf++;
> > + if (p->cur == p->tail - 1) {
> > + if (*buf == '\0') {
> > + *p->cur++ = '\0';
> > + goto ok;
> > + }
> > break;
> > }
> > *p->cur++ = *buf++;
> > } while (--nbytes > 0);
> > *p->cur = '\0';
> > +ok:
> > if (p->cur > p->eob)
> > p->eob = p->cur;
> >
> >
>
> Do we have any reason to NOT use more assertions in such a critical
> library code path?
I'm not sure how fmemopen(3) qualifies as a "critical library code path",
but, whatever.
As for more and more assertions - if people remember the bind assertion
fun we had in July 2009, then I'm sure there would be people asking for
less assertions, not more, especially in library code.
By all means check and warn, but please do not cause execution to halt
unless it's absolutely essential.
Regards,
Alistair
