Attention is currently required from: pespin.
2 comments:
Commit Message:
I see no need for writing an issue if it's a generic patch simply refactoring/improving some code. […]
it's about a hint to me where i can account the review work to
File src/sbcap/sbcap_common.c:
Patch Set #2, Line 162: static char pdu_name[256] = "<unknown>";
I rather have a static buf in the app than using OTC_SELECT. […]
hmm. a while back my impression was that we consciously decided to avoid static buffers, because over the years they build up, amounting to a lot of memory being hogged, completely unused for the vast majority of runtime. Ever since that decision i've been going out of my way to avoid static buffers
There are functional benefits to talloc strings; in addition to the ones i posted before, a talloc string will never cut short a string because the static buffer is too small; i.e. we don't need to pick a size that the largest possible string might ever need.
Since my attention was brought to this aspect, my opinion is that static buffers should be avoided. they are bad in various ways.
this patch is already merged but i consider this still an open issue you brushed over
To view, visit change 28819. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.