Is it really necessary to rewrite this loop? It'd be better to fix the existing code, if possible.
The old loop seemed confusing to me and it overestimated the size of the memory to allocate by a large factor. The old loop would need to have about half of it rewritten to fix the size overestimation and a little more for fixing the original bug. If you think it's very important to keep as much of the old code as possible, I can rewrite the patch that way, but I don't think that's necessary. Jacob Lifshay
On Feb 7, 2017 7:43 PM, "Vincent Povirk" madewokherd@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really necessary to rewrite this loop? It'd be better to fix the existing code, if possible.
Jacob Lifshay programmerjake@gmail.com writes:
The old loop seemed confusing to me and it overestimated the size of the memory to allocate by a large factor. The old loop would need to have about half of it rewritten to fix the size overestimation and a little more for fixing the original bug. If you think it's very important to keep as much of the old code as possible, I can rewrite the patch that way, but I don't think that's necessary.
Please try to fix separate issues as separate patches instead of rewriting everything. The overestimation is very unlikely to be a problem; in fact I'd say that something simple like doubling the incoming size would be better than a complicated calculation.