Re: Lessons learned from string-fix and consequences on StringNg design

Kinkie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Henrik Nordstrom
> <henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
>> tor 2009-02-12 klockan 17:19 +0100 skrev Kinkie:
>>> It would IMHO make sense to:
>>> 1. introduce StringNg::size_type, which should be a _signed_ 32-bit integer
>>> 2. introduce a static const StringNg::npos = -1 to be used in place of
>>> std::string::npos
>> Or use size_t in the API while using a smaler type in the internal
>> representation.
>>
>> size_t is only making a mess for printf style operations, and it's
>> relatively easy to deal with (and have to be dealt with at a number of
>> other locations..)
>
> Also doable.
> Currently there is no overflow-checks. Should they be added or should
> we rely in the callers? Anyone in favour of having some debugs() when
> a Buffer surpasses some predefined dimension?

Definately. With a 32-bit signed size it _should_ be large enough for
most uses. A debugs when it goes close to or over the signed rollover
would be critical IMO. Maybe more, but debugs & assert for now.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
   Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.5