Am Mittwoch, den 16.07.2008, 16:10 +0200 schrieb Tomas Carnecky:
> > This looks like fixing an under-allocation, not over-allocation. The
> > patched code allocates at least 5 bytes more, and never less than 312.
> Never _more_ than 312, because MIN(300, x) <= 300.
Oops, got me. I like to read: mi
Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 15:55 -0700 schrieb Dan Hipschman:
>> if (n < 0) n = 0;
>> size = 12 + min( 300, n * 5 );
>> -dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( n * 5 + 7 );
>> +dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( size );
> This looks like fixing an under-allo
Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 15:55 -0700 schrieb Dan Hipschman:
> if (n < 0) n = 0;
> size = 12 + min( 300, n * 5 );
> -dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( n * 5 + 7 );
> +dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( size );
This looks like fixing an under-allocation, not over-allocation. Th
