Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:04:38 +0200
On 2008-02-23 02:37, ithilgore <ithilgore.fbsd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ithilgore wrote:
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.
I just noticed I made a mistake. The second code is libc's version of
inet_ntoa. But the question still counts. Why not use the plain
simpler version of libc ?
I don't see ucp[] in RELENG_6, RELENG_7 or CURRENT. Where did you get
the version shown as `7.0-RC1' above?
_______________________________________________
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: ithilgore
- Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- References:
- question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: ithilgore
- Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- From: ithilgore
- question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Prev by Date: Re: FBSD 1GBit router?
- Next by Date: Re: vlan issues with 7.0-RC3
- Previous by thread: Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Next by thread: Re: question about change in inet_ntoa.c
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
