I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this one up.


Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct working of 
cherokee_buffer_add

Shouldn't this end up in the same output?

cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));
cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");


In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage char.



Stefan (working hard)
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

On 27 May 2008, at 03:42, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this one
up.
>
> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct working
of
> cherokee_buffer_add
>
> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
>
> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));

I bet you meant strlen() rather than sizeof(). 

sizeof() gives you the total amount of memory that a certain
static  
data or data type requires. In this case it returns 5
because that is  
actually the memory that it needed to allocate to copy the
string:  
"TEST".

> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");

Yeah, this is kind of tricky. By Cherokee's notation,
*_str() means  
that the method works with an *STATIC* string. Even it they
look very  
similar there is a quite big difference between static data
and  
pointers to data:

  /* sizeof ("hello world") = 12 */
  /* strlen ("hello world") = 11 */

and

  char *test = "hello world";
  /* sizeof (test) = 4  */
  /* strlen (test) = 11 */

.. the joys of C, you know!

> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.

I hope I've got back to you quick enough for you to have
some  
sleeping 

--
Greetings, alo.

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

On 27 May 2008, at 03:42, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this one
up.
>
> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct working
of
> cherokee_buffer_add
>
> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
>
> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));

I bet you meant strlen() rather than sizeof(). 

sizeof() gives you the total amount of memory that a certain
static  
data or data type requires. In this case it returns 5
because that is  
actually the memory that it needed to allocate to copy the
string:  
"TEST".

> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");

Yeah, this is kind of tricky. By Cherokee's notation,
*_str() means  
that the method works with an *STATIC* string. Even it they
look very  
similar there is a quite big difference between static data
and  
pointers to data:

  /* sizeof ("hello world") = 12 */
  /* strlen ("hello world") = 11 */

and

  char *test = "hello world";
  /* sizeof (test) = 4  */
  /* strlen (test) = 11 */

.. the joys of C, you know!

> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.

I hope I've got back to you quick enough for you to have
some  
sleeping 

--
Greetings, alo.

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

Alvaro Lopez Ortega schreef:
> On 27 May 2008, at 03:42, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
>> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this
one up.
>>
>> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct
working of
>> cherokee_buffer_add
>>
>> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
>>
>> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));
> 
> I bet you meant strlen() rather than sizeof(). 

No I meant sizeof ;)

> sizeof() gives you the total amount of memory that a
certain static data 
> or data type requires. In this case it returns 5
because that is 
> actually the memory that it needed to allocate to copy
the string: 
> "TEST".
> 
>> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");
> 
> Yeah, this is kind of tricky. By Cherokee's notation,
*_str() means that 
> the method works with an *STATIC* string. Even it they
look very similar 
> there is a quite big difference between static data and
pointers to data:
> 
>  /* sizeof ("hello world") = 12 */
>  /* strlen ("hello world") = 11 */
> 
> and
> 
>  char *test = "hello world";
>  /* sizeof (test) = 4  */
>  /* strlen (test) = 11 */
> 
> .. the joys of C, you know!
> 
>> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.
> 
> I hope I've got back to you quick enough for you to
have some sleeping 

 and
I'll continue to work  Thanks for
the explanation.


Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

Alvaro Lopez Ortega schreef:
> On 27 May 2008, at 03:42, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
>> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this
one up.
>>
>> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct
working of
>> cherokee_buffer_add
>>
>> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
>>
>> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));
> 
> I bet you meant strlen() rather than sizeof(). 

No I meant sizeof ;)

> sizeof() gives you the total amount of memory that a
certain static data 
> or data type requires. In this case it returns 5
because that is 
> actually the memory that it needed to allocate to copy
the string: 
> "TEST".
> 
>> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");
> 
> Yeah, this is kind of tricky. By Cherokee's notation,
*_str() means that 
> the method works with an *STATIC* string. Even it they
look very similar 
> there is a quite big difference between static data and
pointers to data:
> 
>  /* sizeof ("hello world") = 12 */
>  /* strlen ("hello world") = 11 */
> 
> and
> 
>  char *test = "hello world";
>  /* sizeof (test) = 4  */
>  /* strlen (test) = 11 */
> 
> .. the joys of C, you know!
> 
>> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.
> 
> I hope I've got back to you quick enough for you to
have some sleeping 

 and
I'll continue to work  Thanks for
the explanation.


Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this one
up.
> 
> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct working
of
> cherokee_buffer_add
> 
> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
> 
> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));
> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");
> 
> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.

Yes, as Alvaro has explained in a subsequent reply,
it's the zero terminating char.

Anyway, I think that some of cherokee_buffer_* functions
could have a better name and cherokee_buffer_add_str()
is one of these; I would use:

	cherokee_buffer_add_mem()
and
	cherokee_buffer_add_cstr()

to better explain the kind of arguments they take
(memory pointer + size and literal constant string).

-- 
Nick Name:     A.D.F.
E-Mail-Format: Plain Text only (please); view using font
Courier New
--
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
> I think I cannot sleep if someone doesn't pick this one
up.
> 
> Could any of the core devs *verify* the correct working
of
> cherokee_buffer_add
> 
> Shouldn't this end up in the same output?
> 
> cherokee_buffer_add(buf, "TEST",
sizeof("TEST"));
> cherokee_buffer_add_str(buf, "TEST");
> 
> In the first line, the output gets an extra garbage
char.

Yes, as Alvaro has explained in a subsequent reply,
it's the zero terminating char.

Anyway, I think that some of cherokee_buffer_* functions
could have a better name and cherokee_buffer_add_str()
is one of these; I would use:

	cherokee_buffer_add_mem()
and
	cherokee_buffer_add_cstr()

to better explain the kind of arguments they take
(memory pointer + size and literal constant string).

-- 
Nick Name:     A.D.F.
E-Mail-Format: Plain Text only (please); view using font
Courier New
--
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

On 30 May 2008, at 21:48, A.D.F. wrote:
>
> Anyway, I think that some of cherokee_buffer_*
functions
> could have a better name and cherokee_buffer_add_str()
> is one of these; I would use:
>
> 	cherokee_buffer_add_mem()
> and
> 	cherokee_buffer_add_cstr()
>
> to better explain the kind of arguments they take
> (memory pointer + size and literal constant string).

That's a good point, actually.

I do agree on renaming cherokee_buffer_add_str() to  
cherokee_buffer_add_literal(), cherokee_buffer_add_lit() or
something  
similar. The 'str' suffix does not describe it properly,
that is clear.

--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com/

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee

On 30 May 2008, at 21:48, A.D.F. wrote:
>
> Anyway, I think that some of cherokee_buffer_*
functions
> could have a better name and cherokee_buffer_add_str()
> is one of these; I would use:
>
> 	cherokee_buffer_add_mem()
> and
> 	cherokee_buffer_add_cstr()
>
> to better explain the kind of arguments they take
> (memory pointer + size and literal constant string).

That's a good point, actually.

I do agree on renaming cherokee_buffer_add_str() to  
cherokee_buffer_add_literal(), cherokee_buffer_add_lit() or
something  
similar. The 'str' suffix does not describe it properly,
that is clear.

--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com/

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokeecherokee-project.com
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
o/cherokee