Re: [dev] [sbase] [patch] Adding tar v2
Quoth Galos, David: > Thanks in large part to your information about how you invoke tar, I > believe I have come up with a decent solution. I also was able to > find the structified version of tar I had worked on in the past. I'd be inclined to check for and filter out leading .. and / characters, to avoid tarballs doing unexpectedly evil things.
Re: [dev] [dwm] [patch] Fix warning about XKeycodeToKeysym
Hi Alexander, On 12 July 2013 14:03, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > Attaching a patch for fixing a warning about XKeycodeToKeysym, by > replacing it with a call to XGetKeyboardMapping. Which warning are you referring to? Also in your suggested patch keysyms_per_keycode_return is never evaluated, though keysym_count == 1 in your suggested call. Also according to http://tronche.com/gui/x/xlib/input/XGetKeyboardMapping.html the result must be XFree()'d to avoid mem leaks. So if this is all about the stupid X deprecation warnings, I'm tempted to ignore those Xlib hell until they really remove those old calls. Best regards, Anselm
Re: [dev] dwm bit fields conversion
On 7 July 2013 16:49, koneu wrote:
> In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes more,
> depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit to 1 or 0.
> In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses, we can instead use char bit
> fields, storing up to 8 Bool values in 1 byte.
>
> diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
> index 314adf4..83af1f6 100644
> --- a/dwm.c
> +++ b/dwm.c
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ struct Client {
> int basew, baseh, incw, inch, maxw, maxh, minw, minh;
> int bw, oldbw;
> unsigned int tags;
> - Bool isfixed, isfloating, isurgent, neverfocus, oldstate,
> isfullscreen;
> + unsigned char isfixed :1, isfloating :1, isurgent :1, neverfocus :1,
> oldstate :1, isfullscreen :1, :2;
> Client *next;
> Client *snext;
> Monitor *mon;
> @@ -121,8 +121,7 @@ struct Monitor {
> unsigned int seltags;
> unsigned int sellt;
> unsigned int tagset[2];
> - Bool showbar;
> - Bool topbar;
> + unsigned char showbar :1, topbar :1, :6;
> Client *clients;
> Client *sel;
> Client *stack;
I find this less readable than the usage of Bool. If memory
consumption would be a major dwm concern, I'd agree with such a
suggestion. But there are more important problems to focus on in dwm
6.1 (fixed xinerama support).
Best regards,
Anselm
Re: [dev] [sbase] [patch] Adding tar v2
On 14 July 2013 20:42, Nick wrote: > Quoth Galos, David: >> Thanks in large part to your information about how you invoke tar, I >> believe I have come up with a decent solution. I also was able to >> find the structified version of tar I had worked on in the past. > > I'd be inclined to check for and filter out leading .. and / > characters, to avoid tarballs doing unexpectedly evil things. I think all security onus for stuff like that should be on the user -- they can still do unexpectedly evil things either way (even stripping .. and /). It should be the user's responsibility to verify what will happen when a tarball is extracted using -t.
Re: [dev] dwm bit fields conversion
Since this is just uncommon syntax (at least I haven't seen it before)
and it is just used in the declaration I would be ok with it, if an
additional comment explains it. It's not a strong opinion though, just
an idea.
--Markus
Am 2013-07-14 21:32, schrieb Anselm R Garbe:
On 7 July 2013 16:49, koneu wrote:
In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes
more, depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit
to 1 or 0.
In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses, we can instead use
char bit fields, storing up to 8 Bool values in 1 byte.
diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
index 314adf4..83af1f6 100644
--- a/dwm.c
+++ b/dwm.c
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ struct Client {
int basew, baseh, incw, inch, maxw, maxh, minw, minh;
int bw, oldbw;
unsigned int tags;
- Bool isfixed, isfloating, isurgent, neverfocus, oldstate,
isfullscreen;
+ unsigned char isfixed :1, isfloating :1, isurgent :1,
neverfocus :1, oldstate :1, isfullscreen :1, :2;
Client *next;
Client *snext;
Monitor *mon;
@@ -121,8 +121,7 @@ struct Monitor {
unsigned int seltags;
unsigned int sellt;
unsigned int tagset[2];
- Bool showbar;
- Bool topbar;
+ unsigned char showbar :1, topbar :1, :6;
Client *clients;
Client *sel;
Client *stack;
I find this less readable than the usage of Bool. If memory
consumption would be a major dwm concern, I'd agree with such a
suggestion. But there are more important problems to focus on in dwm
6.1 (fixed xinerama support).
Best regards,
Anselm
[dev] [sbase] Patch to make md5 and sha1 more similar
Hi, I've included a patch that makes minor changes to md5 and sha1. Both hashing functions are pretty similar but the code differed in a few places so I cleaned them both up a bit. Also I made some minor changes like moving the rol function to below the definitions and also instead of *= 8 I did a <<= 3 which is functionally equivalent but should save a tiny bit of speed (unless the compiler is smart enough to catch that and replaces it automatically). 0001-More-consistancy-between-md5-and-sha1.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [dev] dwm bit fields conversion
I should check generated code, but usually a mov is faster than mov+and+mov for
setting a bit.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 23:22, Markus Teich wrote:
> Since this is just uncommon syntax (at least I haven't seen it before) and it
> is just used in the declaration I would be ok with it, if an additional
> comment explains it. It's not a strong opinion though, just an idea.
>
> --Markus
>
>
> Am 2013-07-14 21:32, schrieb Anselm R Garbe:
>> On 7 July 2013 16:49, koneu wrote:
>>> In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes more,
>>> depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit to 1 or 0.
>>> In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses, we can instead use char bit
>>> fields, storing up to 8 Bool values in 1 byte.
>>> diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
>>> index 314adf4..83af1f6 100644
>>> --- a/dwm.c
>>> +++ b/dwm.c
>>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ struct Client {
>>>int basew, baseh, incw, inch, maxw, maxh, minw, minh;
>>>int bw, oldbw;
>>>unsigned int tags;
>>> - Bool isfixed, isfloating, isurgent, neverfocus, oldstate,
>>> isfullscreen;
>>> + unsigned char isfixed :1, isfloating :1, isurgent :1, neverfocus
>>> :1, oldstate :1, isfullscreen :1, :2;
>>>Client *next;
>>>Client *snext;
>>>Monitor *mon;
>>> @@ -121,8 +121,7 @@ struct Monitor {
>>>unsigned int seltags;
>>>unsigned int sellt;
>>>unsigned int tagset[2];
>>> - Bool showbar;
>>> - Bool topbar;
>>> + unsigned char showbar :1, topbar :1, :6;
>>>Client *clients;
>>>Client *sel;
>>>Client *stack;
>> I find this less readable than the usage of Bool. If memory
>> consumption would be a major dwm concern, I'd agree with such a
>> suggestion. But there are more important problems to focus on in dwm
>> 6.1 (fixed xinerama support).
>> Best regards,
>> Anselm
>
