On Thu, 13 May 2004, [UTF-8] Tobias Ringström wrote:
> Branko ÄŒibej wrote:
> > I'll note that most of our sprintfs are 100% safe. I see no reason to
> > eliminate those, and add more allocations or gods forbid new pool
> > arguments where there weren't any.
>
> I checked the sprintfs that Peter changed and they were not in a
> performance critical path, but I agree that there is no real need to
> change them either. I have no strong opinion either way in this case,
> but I did review his patch and it was at least correct.
>
The reason I wanted to do this in the first place was reviewability.
sprintf can be a security hole, as we all know, so everytime one sees a
sprintf, one have to look carefully. I see absolutely no reason, as Tobias
also notes, to care about performance in the places where I replaced the
sprintfs. Actually, in one place the buffer length was one character too
short (20 chars for a signed (possibly) 64-bit int, including the null
character).
Anyway, it is commited now as per approval by Tobias...
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 13 20:02:10 2004