[Ltrace-devel] patch : disable broken printf length

[Mike Dupont]

yes, need to revise the comments. I though as much, I have to redo not
edit the patch.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Petr Machata <pmachata at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, I dropped the Debian bugbot from CC.
>
> Mike  Dupont <jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> @@ -207,8 +202,8 @@ param_printf_next(struct param_enum *sel
>>              continue;
>>
>>          case '*':
>> -            /* Length parameter given in the next
>> -             * argument.  */
>> +            /* Min or max Length parameter given in the next
>> +             * argument depending on position.  */
>
> I don't understand the intention behind this commentary change.
> (Also, s/Length/length/.)
>
>>              if (self->future_length == NULL)
>>                  /* This should really be an assert,
>>                   * but we can't just fail on invalid
>> @@ -229,8 +224,6 @@ param_printf_next(struct param_enum *sel
>>              /* Field length likewise, but we need to parse
>>               * this to attach the appropriate string
>>               * length expression.  */
>> -            if (len_buf_len < sizeof(len_buf) - 1)
>> -                len_buf[len_buf_len++] = *self->ptr;
>
> The comment is not accurate anymore.  I think you can move all the
> numeric cases up in the switch alongside the '#', ' ' etc.
>
> Looks good otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
> Petr



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us
Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas
http://openkansas.us
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com