From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: oops? read/write vs type of length parameter Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:56:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83fwpnquhg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wrj1jhfc.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87hba5yq0p.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <834o64sxd7.fsf@gnu.org> <4DA3A7F8.1020503@cs.ucla.edu> <83k4f0qijz.fsf@gnu.org> <4DA3DDCD.10700@cs.ucla.edu> <4DA40AFE.8050406@cs.ucla.edu> <4DA47581.9010509@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302627507 7087 80.91.229.12 (12 Apr 2011 16:58:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert , Stefan Monnier , Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 12 18:58:23 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9gv0-0007xD-PJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:58:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40439 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9gv0-000424-DN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:58:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9gux-00041t-Kd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:58:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9guw-0007Id-6T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:58:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:38930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9guw-0007IA-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:58:18 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LJJ00700SH1PV00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:58:16 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.31.148]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LJJ007FXTT1DBA0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:58:15 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <4DA47581.9010509@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138444 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:53:37 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jim@meyering.net > > If the code is well-defended against passing negative sizes, > then we can remove the checks entirely; they're not needed. My experience is that you can never be well defended against mixing signed with unsigned. Stefan and Chong, please voice your opinions about this. I'm strongly opposed to having the last argument of emacs_read and emacs_write be of unsigned data type, but if you are okay with that, I'll get over it. > I'm sorry if there are hurt feelings about this, but size_t is > clearly the better choice for buffer sizes; it's the universal > standard in the C API. Those hurt feeling would have been avoided if you waited until the discussion is over and decision is made.