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

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 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.

I've added an (arbitrary) limit at 256Mb, tuneable via static const.

-- 
    /kinkie