* Juan Quintela ([email protected]) wrote: > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > + while (index >= f->buf_size) { > >> > + int received = qemu_fill_buffer(f); > >> > + > >> > + if (received <= 0) { > >> > >> here, I don't know really what to do. We just need one character, so > >> the 1st call to qemu_fill_buffer() gives it to us, or we are already on > >> problems. i.e. no need of the while() loop. > > > > The problem is that peek_byte takes an offset, so while qemu_fill_buffer > > will get us a byte, we actually need it to get us all the bytes upto the > > offset, and that's not guaranteed from one call. > > that is not a problem. > > We never got a "hole" on the things that we ask for. We ask for the > "next byte", or the "next bytes", so in qemu_peek_byte() we are > guaranteed (with current users) that we would only have to read a single > byte. > > I.e. qemu_peek_{buffer,byte}(....,offset, size) means that we have > "already" peek until offset, and now we want size more bytes.
Hmm ok, that is convenient but is neither documented or enforced; I'll rework my patch and at least document it, and possibly enforce it. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
