Re: [PATCH/RFC] recv_sideband: Band #2 always goes to stderr

[Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>]

Shawn O. Pearce schrieb:
> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> diff --git a/sideband.c b/sideband.c
>> index cca3360..a706ac8 100644
>> --- a/sideband.c
>> +++ b/sideband.c
>> @@ -50,8 +49,8 @@ int recv_sideband(const char *me, int in_stream, int out, int err)
>>  		switch (band) {
>>  		case 3:
>>  			buf[pf] = ' ';
>> -			buf[pf+1+len] = '\n';
>> -			safe_write(err, buf, pf+1+len+1);
>> +			buf[pf+1+len] = '\0';
>> +			fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", buf);
> 
> Can't you instead do:
> 
> 	fprintf(stderr, "%.*s\n", buf, pf + len);
> 
> like you do...
> 
>> @@ -95,12 +94,13 @@ int recv_sideband(const char *me, int in_stream, int out, int err)
>>  					memcpy(save, b + brk, sf);
>>  					b[brk + sf - 1] = b[brk - 1];
>>  					memcpy(b + brk - 1, suffix, sf);
>> -					safe_write(err, b, brk + sf);
>> +					fprintf(stderr, "%.*s", brk + sf, b);
>>  					memcpy(b + brk, save, sf);
>>  					len -= brk;
>>  				} else {
>>  					int l = brk ? brk : len;
>> -					safe_write(err, b, l);
>> +					if (l > 0)
>> +						fprintf(stderr, "%.*s", l, b);
> 
> here?

I deliberatly avoided "%.*s" in the former hunk (1) because of the posts
that we had yesterday about potentially misbehaved fprintf in the case
where the precision is 0; and (2) because it was so easy to avoid it. I
don't think we need ultimate performance in this case, and I also consider
the plain "%s\n" more readable.

That said, the second hunk is really only the minimal change and I'd like
to rewrite it to get rid of the memcpy stuff. It is really not needed once
fprintf is in the game. But that's a separate patch.

-- Hannes