Re: [python][patch] Add options length parameter to value.string(...)

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>]

Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> El lun, 06-04-2009 a las 16:14 -0600, Tom Tromey escribiÃ:
>   
> > > > > > > "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