Hi,
On 09/13/2013 02:01 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Daniel Krügler
<daniel.krueg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you mean "pessimises code size", or something else?
Yes.
Daniel's idea proved a good one, and I now have a patch that I am
happy with, and that will be easy to extend to string::at(), and other
__throw_... functions.
I've added the new snprintf.cc to c++11/ rather than c++98/ as Paolo
suggested, because the only current caller is in c++11/functexcept.cc
Patch looks pretty good to me. Thanks for persisting. Some details:
- The game with the variadic and the non-variadic __throw_out_of_range
makes me a little nervous. Let's just name the new one differently, like
__throw_out_of_range_var.
- Please consistently use __builtin_alloca everywhere, alloca isn't a
standard function.
- I would rather call the file itself snprintf_lite.cc, in order not to
fool somebody that it actually implements the whole snprintf.
- I'm a bit confused about __concat_size_t returning -1. Since it only
formats integers, I think we can be *sure* that the buffer is big
enough. Then, if it returns -1 something is going *very badly* wrong,
shouldn't we __builtin_abort() or something similar?
- In terms of buffer sizes, this comment:
// enough for expanding up to 5 size_t's in the format.
and then the actual code in __snprintf_lite makes me a little nervous.
Agreed, we are not going to overflow the buffer, but truncating with no
diagnostic whatsoever seems rather gross. We can probably sort out this
later, new ideas welcome, anyway.
- While we are at it, shouldn't we use the new facility at least in
array, vector<bool> and deque too? For consistency over the containers.
Thanks,
Paolo.
