From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <archer-return-1259-listarch-archer=sourceware.org@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29425 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2009 09:58:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Sender: <archer@sourceware.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:archer@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:archer-help@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:archer-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Id: <archer.sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29415 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2009 09:58:20 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49DDC6B0.4080009@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:58:00 -0000
From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
CC: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, Project Archer <archer@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [python][patch] Add options length parameter to	value.string(...)
References: <49DA33CE.9070803@redhat.com> <m3myat2zx2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1239057175.8871.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1239057175.8871.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2

Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> El lun, 06-04-2009 a las 16:14 -0600, Tom Tromey escribió:
>   
>>>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>>>               
>> The rest looks good to me.
>>     
>
> >From what we talked on IRC, in this block:
>
>       /* If we know the size of the array, we can use it as a limit on the
>          number of characters to be fetched.  */
>       if (TYPE_NFIELDS (type) == 1
>           && TYPE_CODE (TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (type, 0)) == TYPE_CODE_RANGE)
>
> we want to set *length and not fetchlimit from the array size. But
> probably only if *length is -1. If the caller specified a *length
> already, we shouldn't override it and continue using the array size for
> the fetchlimit.
>   
I'm not sure what benefit setting the length to arraysize in the case of 
length  -1 would achieve? Fetchlimit will be set to either unint_max or 
the actual bounds of the array, and -1 means return at first null or  
fetchlimit length within the fetchlimit?  So sending length of -1, and a 
fetchlimit as described in the current existing logic would "do the 
right thing"? If I were to set length to the array bound in the -1 case, 
it would fetch the whole array, and not stop on the first null (which we 
want for -1)?

Regards

Phil