Re: [RFA] win32-nat printf and sprintf removal

Christopher Faylor
2002-02-14T16:49:48Z

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 05:44:10PM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote:
>At 17:13 14/02/2002 , Christopher Faylor a ?crit:
>>On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:31:33AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> >Suggest adding a comment just above each sprintf() call indicating that
>> >buf is static (at least that way the next person won't be puzzled by
>> >this).
>>
>>There are three sprintfs in win32-nat.c. One uses a static buffer of 80
>>bytes (which is overkill). The 'static char buf[80]' is two or three
>>lines above the use of sprintf. The other use of sprintf uses an
>>alloca'ed buffer. The alloca is directly above the sprintf.
>>
>>I don't think it makes sense to mention "this buffer is static" one line
>>below the definition of the buffer or "this buffer is allocated from the
>>stack" directly after the buffer is allocated on the stack.
>>
>>The moral of the story here is not that more comments are needed (at
>>least not in this case). The true moral is that you should be sensitive
>>to warnings in the code, you should be *very* sensitive to an increase
>>in warnings (in this case from zero to three) and you should test
>>changes thoroughly before submitting an "obvious" fix.
>
>You are completely right, I need to be more cautious,
>especially as my C knowledge still is quite lacunar.
>(I didn't know about the automatic disposal for alloca until today :()

No permanent harm done. I *really* appreciate all the work that you're
doing on win32-nat.c. You're adding features that I've been dreaming about
for years.

Which reminds me. I have a patch pending that I really should apply.
It allows use of ">" "<" constructs from the command line.

Where did I put that patch? Rustle, rustle...

cgf