RE: alert.c

[Rory Toma]

I figured we were OK. I'm running RATS and tracking down the large
amount of (mostly harmless) warnings.

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 15:01, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> > In this snippet of code from alert.c:
> > *
> > I have a few questions. Why are we using a fixed sized buffer for buf?
> 
> Since I'm to blame for the code I can try and answer this. The buffer is not
> fixed, I relay on a feature in gcc that allows for dynamically declaring a
> buffer size. The size is different for each string to replace. If this feature
> didn't exist or another compiler than gcc was used it would probably be better
> to malloc the string.
> 
> > Wouldn't it be easier and better to malloc it?
> 
> The idea (not a big point in this case) is that malloc is more expensive than
> automatic variables. Besides it's one less free() to remember.
> 
> > Shouldn't we be using strncat?
> 
> Since we now the size of the strings we are operating on it's okay.
> 
> > Why do we free(*src) and then use it right after?
> 
> Because src is the old string and buf the new replaced string, we free(() src
> to avoid a memory leak before we set src to point to the new string.
> 
> I hope that explained the function?
> 
> Jan-Henrik
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> monit-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-dev
> 
-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 5       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part