Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
index db0fafe..67d67f8 100644
--- a/imap-send.c
+++ b/imap-send.c
@@ -506,12 +506,12 @@ static char *next_arg(char **s)
static int nfsnprintf(char *buf, int blen, const char *fmt, ...)
{
- int ret;
+ int ret = -1;
va_list va;
va_start(va, fmt);
if (blen <= 0 || (unsigned)(ret = vsnprintf(buf, blen, fmt, va)) >= (unsigned)blen)
- die("Fatal: buffer too small. Please report a bug.");
+ die("BUG: buffer too small (%d < %d)", ret, blen);
va_end(va);
return ret;
}
If "you gave me this size but you need at least this much" is truly
worth reporting, then this is misleading (ret is shown as -1 but you
do not even know how much is necessary). In any case, this should
be done as a separate step anyway.
Hrm, isn't "ret" going to be the necessary size? According to the
standard, it should tell us how many bytes were needed, not "-1" (this
is the "your vsnprintf is broken" case handled by the strbuf code).
Yes. If blen <= 0, we do not even do vsnprintf() and that is why
Dscho added "int ret = -1" initialization; otherwise his new die()
would end up referencing uninitialized ret.
I do think the numbers are reversed, though. It should be "blen < ret".
That, too ;-)
Hi Junio & Peff,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
index db0fafe..67d67f8 100644
--- a/imap-send.c
+++ b/imap-send.c
@@ -506,12 +506,12 @@ static char *next_arg(char **s)
static int nfsnprintf(char *buf, int blen, const char *fmt, ...)
{
- int ret;
+ int ret = -1;
va_list va;
va_start(va, fmt);
if (blen <= 0 || (unsigned)(ret = vsnprintf(buf, blen, fmt, va)) >= (unsigned)blen)
- die("Fatal: buffer too small. Please report a bug.");
+ die("BUG: buffer too small (%d < %d)", ret, blen);
va_end(va);
return ret;
}
If "you gave me this size but you need at least this much" is truly
worth reporting, then this is misleading (ret is shown as -1 but you
do not even know how much is necessary). In any case, this should
be done as a separate step anyway.
Hrm, isn't "ret" going to be the necessary size? According to the
standard, it should tell us how many bytes were needed, not "-1" (this
is the "your vsnprintf is broken" case handled by the strbuf code).
Yes. If blen <= 0, we do not even do vsnprintf() and that is why
Dscho added "int ret = -1" initialization; otherwise his new die()
would end up referencing uninitialized ret.
Exactly. While I was fixing this bug message, it occurred to me that it
makes little sense to ask a user to report a bug when it is unknown how
small the buffer was and what would have been the desired buffer size. So
I did a fly-by fix.
However, it is true that this is completely outside the purpose of this
patch series (in fact, most of this patch is completely outside the
purpose, and I am regretting that dearly, as the patch series' submission
already takes almost a month, and I only now get people to review the
critical parts of the changes).
So I simply backed out the more verbose message and *only* do the obvious
thing: replace the "Fatal:" prefix by a "BUG:" one.
quoted
I do think the numbers are reversed, though. It should be "blen < ret".
That, too ;-)
True. All the better that I reverted that part of the patch ;-)
Ciao,
Dscho