Re: savestring()

Re: savestring()

[Andrew Cagney]

"J.T. Conklin" wrote:
> 
> Lint complaints about signed/unsigned conversions in the typical use
> of savestring:

ARI just complains about it :-)

>         x->foo = savestring(bar, strlen(bar));
> 
> Is there any reason why we shouldn't change the type of savestring's
> (likewise msavestring) second argument from int to size_t?
> 
> Also, since the above is the same as:
> 
>         x->foo = xstrdup(bar);
> 
> Is there any reason why we shouldn't change it?  It's a bit odd that
> half the code uses savestring() and the other half uses xstrdup().

From the TODO file.

	--

	Replace savestring() with something from libiberty.

	An xstrldup()? but that would have different semantics.

	--

There may be more on this in the GDB and OpenBSD e-mail archives.  I
sent an e-mail to the OpenBSD group asking if there should be a
strldup() like function - the strl*() functions originated from someone
in OpenBSD land.

Anyway, yes, some instances of savestring should be xstrdup() but others
are not so should probably get ``X'' rated treatment :-)

As for size_t.  I have no idea, does libiberty manage to use size_t in
its headers?  If it does then, why not :-)

	Andrew

savestring()

[J.T. Conklin]

Lint complaints about signed/unsigned conversions in the typical use
of savestring:

        x->foo = savestring(bar, strlen(bar));

Is there any reason why we shouldn't change the type of savestring's
(likewise msavestring) second argument from int to size_t?

Also, since the above is the same as:

        x->foo = xstrdup(bar);

Is there any reason why we shouldn't change it?  It's a bit odd that
half the code uses savestring() and the other half uses xstrdup().

        --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks