16 Jul
2008
16 Jul
'08
2:10 p.m.
Michael Karcher wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 15:55 -0700 schrieb Dan Hipschman:
if (n < 0) n = 0; size = 12 + min( 300, n * 5 ); - dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( n * 5 + 7 ); + dst = res = funcs.get_temp_buffer( size );
This looks like fixing an under-allocation, not over-allocation. The patched code allocates at least 5 bytes more, and never less than 312.
Never _more_ than 312, because MIN(300, x) <= 300. tom