Paul Eggert wrote:
> I guess it partly depends on whether one prefers code to be easy to
> read, or easy to write. I usually prefer the former.
I also prefer code to be easy to read. But while reading code, casts don't
attract my attention particularly...
Bruno
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The less you have to think when manipulating some code, the better.
True, but there are other concerns. When I read C code like this:
(char *)
I stop mentally and ask "why is that cast there?" Casts like that are
dangerous, and I need to
Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > static inline char *
> > xstrcat (size_t argcount, va_list args)
> > {
> > char *result;
>
> ...elided...
>
> > /* Allocate and fill the result string. */
> > result = (char *) xmalloc (totalsize + 1);
>
> Why is the cast needed? I was under the impression that GNU
Paul Eggert wrote:
> totalsize is of type size_t, so SIZE_MAX is the problem case here, not
> INT_MAX.
Good point. Also a possible overflow in the xsum() calls before is needed.
I'm committing this changed code.
Bruno
static inline char *
xstrcat (size_t argcount, va_list args)
{
char *resu
Eric Blake wrote:
> > + p = result;
> > + va_copy (ap, args);
>
> Why are you using va_copy a second time? vsprintf is allowed to consume
> its va_list argument (aka use va_arg on it), so long as it leaves the
> va_close for the caller.
Right. This is an optim I had neglected. Thanks.
> > +
