Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

Werner Coetzee

Hi

 

Why does the octstr_cat(Octstr *ostr1, Octstr *ostr2) function in gwlib/octstr.c require that ostr1 be non-immutable?

It contains:

gw_assert(!ostr1->immutable);

 

I can't see any reason for the requirement since ostr1 is never modified in octstr_cat() so to me octstr_cat() should work perfectly fine/safely if ostr1 is immutable.

And since the requirement is there for ostr1, why is it not there for ostr2?  There's no difference in the way that ostr1 and ostr2 is used.

 

I now have to resort to much slower functions such as octstr_format or octstr_insert or octstr_append to get the same result.

 

My use case:

 

void myfunc(const Octstr *param) // param should/will not be modified

{

    Octstr *newvar = octstr_cat(octstr_imm("PREFIX"), param);  // this will panic

    // Do something with newvar

}

 

So my work around is newvar = octstr_format("%s%S", "PREFIX", param); but could also have newvar = octstr_create("PREFIX"); octstr_append(newvar, param); or even newvar = octstr_duplicate(param); octstr_insert(newvar, octstr_imm("PREFIX"), 0);

 

I would really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this, and if the powers that be agree with me remove the assertion?

 

Thanks in advance

Werner

 


 
Werner Coetzee
Senior Message Engine Engineer
 
T  +27 21 910 7700
[hidden email]
www.clickatell.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

amalysh
Hi Werner,

as far as I see there is no reason to immutable assert.

Alex


Am 21.12.2016 um 15:39 schrieb Werner Coetzee <[hidden email]>:

Hi
 
Why does the octstr_cat(Octstr *ostr1, Octstr *ostr2) function in gwlib/octstr.c require that ostr1 be non-immutable?
It contains:
gw_assert(!ostr1->immutable);
 
I can't see any reason for the requirement since ostr1 is never modified in octstr_cat() so to me octstr_cat() should work perfectly fine/safely if ostr1 is immutable.
And since the requirement is there for ostr1, why is it not there for ostr2?  There's no difference in the way that ostr1 and ostr2 is used.
 
I now have to resort to much slower functions such as octstr_format or octstr_insert or octstr_append to get the same result.
 
My use case:
 
void myfunc(const Octstr *param) // param should/will not be modified
{
    Octstr *newvar = octstr_cat(octstr_imm("PREFIX"), param);  // this will panic
    // Do something with newvar
}
 
So my work around is newvar = octstr_format("%s%S", "PREFIX", param); but could also have newvar = octstr_create("PREFIX"); octstr_append(newvar, param); or even newvar = octstr_duplicate(param); octstr_insert(newvar, octstr_imm("PREFIX"), 0);
 
I would really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this, and if the powers that be agree with me remove the assertion?
 
Thanks in advance
Werner
 

  
<image1a2972.PNG>
Werner Coetzee
Senior Message Engine Engineer
<imagea0c2e2.PNG>
 
T  +27 21 910 7700
[hidden email]
www.clickatell.com
<imagedf67b0.PNG>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

Rene Kluwen
In reply to this post by Werner Coetzee
First of all, let me say that I agree with you.
But a possible way of thinking could have been to make octstr_cat make like (or look like) strcat().

== Rene

------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: "Werner Coetzee" <[hidden email]>
Verzonden: 21-12-2016 15:39:50
Onderwerp: Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

Hi

 

Why does the octstr_cat(Octstr *ostr1, Octstr *ostr2) function in gwlib/octstr.c require that ostr1 be non-immutable?

It contains:

gw_assert(!ostr1->immutable);

 

I can't see any reason for the requirement since ostr1 is never modified in octstr_cat() so to me octstr_cat() should work perfectly fine/safely if ostr1 is immutable.

And since the requirement is there for ostr1, why is it not there for ostr2?  There's no difference in the way that ostr1 and ostr2 is used.

 

I now have to resort to much slower functions such as octstr_format or octstr_insert or octstr_append to get the same result.

 

My use case:

 

void myfunc(const Octstr *param) // param should/will not be modified

{

    Octstr *newvar = octstr_cat(octstr_imm("PREFIX"), param);  // this will panic

    // Do something with newvar

}

 

So my work around is newvar = octstr_format("%s%S", "PREFIX", param); but could also have newvar = octstr_create("PREFIX"); octstr_append(newvar, param); or even newvar = octstr_duplicate(param); octstr_insert(newvar, octstr_imm("PREFIX"), 0);

 

I would really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this, and if the powers that be agree with me remove the assertion?

 

Thanks in advance

Werner

 


 

Werner Coetzee
Senior Message Engine Engineer
 
T  +27 21 910 7700
[hidden email]
www.clickatell.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does octstr_cat() require ostr1 to be non-immutable?

amalysh
In reply to this post by amalysh
Hi,

I fixed it in SVN.

Thanks,
Alex


Am 22.12.2016 um 12:04 schrieb [hidden email]:

Hi Werner,

as far as I see there is no reason to immutable assert.

Alex


Am 21.12.2016 um 15:39 schrieb Werner Coetzee <[hidden email]>:

Hi
 
Why does the octstr_cat(Octstr *ostr1, Octstr *ostr2) function in gwlib/octstr.c require that ostr1 be non-immutable?
It contains:
gw_assert(!ostr1->immutable);
 
I can't see any reason for the requirement since ostr1 is never modified in octstr_cat() so to me octstr_cat() should work perfectly fine/safely if ostr1 is immutable.
And since the requirement is there for ostr1, why is it not there for ostr2?  There's no difference in the way that ostr1 and ostr2 is used.
 
I now have to resort to much slower functions such as octstr_format or octstr_insert or octstr_append to get the same result.
 
My use case:
 
void myfunc(const Octstr *param) // param should/will not be modified
{
    Octstr *newvar = octstr_cat(octstr_imm("PREFIX"), param);  // this will panic
    // Do something with newvar
}
 
So my work around is newvar = octstr_format("%s%S", "PREFIX", param); but could also have newvar = octstr_create("PREFIX"); octstr_append(newvar, param); or even newvar = octstr_duplicate(param); octstr_insert(newvar, octstr_imm("PREFIX"), 0);
 
I would really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this, and if the powers that be agree with me remove the assertion?
 
Thanks in advance
Werner
 

  
<image1a2972.PNG>
Werner Coetzee
Senior Message Engine Engineer
<imagea0c2e2.PNG>
 
T  +27 21 910 7700
[hidden email]
www.clickatell.com
<imagedf67b0.PNG>