[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?
From: |
Nathaniel J. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent? |
Date: |
Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:18:53 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:24:05PM +0100, Christof Petig wrote:
> Actually the NUL byte turned out to be not the real problem, the problem
> was the 0xff byte following the NUL bytes which terminated the string.
> (int(char(0xff))==EOF on intel machines)
Ah, sign-extending is wonderful.
> Patch:
> ============================================================
> --- basic_io.hh d8c0da1addf5ce3ebda40f4508db86375620343a
> +++ basic_io.hh 2d6d4c0e33715ae8addbf0467dc535edbd88f683
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ namespace basic_io
> inline void peek()
> {
> if (LIKELY(curr != in.end()))
> - lookahead = *curr;
> + lookahead = *curr & 0xff;
Using:
lookahead = widen<int,char>(*curr);
is better (I guess maybe with a comment? this is exactly the sort of
situation widen<> is designed for, though), and this patch appears to
use tabs instead of spaces for indentation, but yeah, fine to commit.
-- Nathaniel
- [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?, Christof Petig, 2006/12/06
- Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?, Nathaniel J. Smith, 2006/12/06
- Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?, Christof Petig, 2006/12/08
- Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?,
Nathaniel J. Smith <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] basic_io not binary transparent?, Christof Petig, 2006/12/18
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Summit funding, was: basic_io not binary transparent?, Christof Petig, 2006/12/19
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Summit funding, was: basic_io not binary transparent?, Christof Petig, 2006/12/19
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Summit funding, was: basic_io not binary transparent?, Nathaniel J. Smith, 2006/12/19