On Aug 16 14:11, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>
> On 16.08.2012 11:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Hi Thomas,
> >
> >thanks for the patch. I have a few minor nits:
> >
> >On Aug 14 22:56, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> >>--- sav/fhandler_clipboard.cc 2012-07-08 02:36:47.000000000 +0200
> >>+++ ./fhandler_clipboard.cc 2012-08-14 18:25:14.903255600 +0200
> >>...
> >See (*) below.
> >
> >>...
> >>+ char * _ptr = (char *) ptr;
> >>+ size_t _len = len;
> >I would prefer to have local variable names here which don't just
> >differ by a leading underscore. It's a bit confusing. What about,
> >say, tmp_ptr/tmp_len, or use_ptr/use_len or something like that?
> tmp_OK
>
> >>+ char cprabuf [8 + 1]; /* need this length for surrogates */
> >>+ if (len < 8)
> >>+ {
> >>+ _ptr = cprabuf;
> >>+ _len = 8;
> >>+ }
> >8? Why 8? The size appears to be rather artificial. The code should
> >use MB_CUR_MAX instead.
> MB_CUR_MAX does not work because its value is 1 at this point
So what about MB_LEN_MAX then? There's no problem using a multiplier,
but a symbolic constant is always better than a numerical constant.
> >>+ /* If using read-ahead buffer, copy to class read-ahead buffer
> >>+ and deliver first byte. */
> >>+ if (_ptr == cprabuf)
> >>+ {
> >>+ puts_readahead (cprabuf, ret);
> >>+ * (char *) ptr = get_readahead ();
> >>+ ret = 1;
> >(*) Ok, that works, but wouldn't it be more efficient to do that in
> >a tiny loop along the lines of
> >
> > int x;
> > ret = 0;
> > while (ret < len && (x = get_readahead ()) >= 0)
> > ptr++ = x;
> > ret++;
> >
> >?
> I can add it if you prefer; I just didn't think it's worth the
> effort and concerning efficiency, after that prior trial-and-error
> count-down-loop...
Yeah, that's a valid point. But maybe we shouldn't make it slower
than necessary? If you have a good idea how to avoid the other
loop, don't hesitate to submit a patch.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
