Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: ithilgore <ithilgore.fbsd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:37:02 -0800
ithilgore wrote:
I just noticed I made a mistake. The second code is libc's version of inet_ntoa.
I was looking at the differences between some old FreeBSD code
and the one of 7.0-RC1 and was wondering about a change
in inet_ntoa.c
/***** 7.0-RC1 **************/
sprintf(buf, "%d.%d.%d.%d",
ucp[0] & 0xff,
ucp[1] & 0xff,
ucp[2] & 0xff,
ucp[3] & 0xff);
/****** 4.11-RELEASE ***********/
static const char fmt[] = "%u.%u.%u%u";
if ((size_t)snprintf(dst, size, fmt, src[0], src[1], src[2], src[3])
>= size) {
....
....
Was there a specific purpose of changing the more easy and simple way
of %u instead of the combination of %d and and-ing with 0xff ??
It essentially gives the same result but increases overhead (i think) in the more
recent version.
But the question still counts. Why not use the plain simpler version of libc ?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: Giorgos Keramidas
- Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- References:
- question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: ithilgore
- question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Prev by Date: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Next by Date: You just recieved an electronic card! Thanks!
- Previous by thread: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Next by thread: Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
