Re: Hello

From: George (greerga@CIRCLEMUD.ORG)
Date: 09/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Jason Wilkins wrote:

>In the file with main(), comm.c I believe, there is a utility function
>that says it was rewritten to stop a warning (passing a structure back on
>the stack, or temporary area I believe), but is says that they sacrificed
>thread safeness to do it.  Its not thread safe because it keeps its return
>value in a static structure.  Why not just add a parameter to the function
>that points to where to put the answer?

At the time I did that to cause the least changes in bpl14.  It has since
been changed to do the same as strcpy() and the like.

>Its just a nit-pick.  I was just wondering if there was a reason that it
>was done this way?  The way I propose is also the most efficient.  So that
>doesn't seem to be an issue.  It seems to just be laziness, I understand
>completely.  Make the change that will cause you to change the least code.

More of an aversion to a huge change.  Once we take the little step and
nothing breaks, we go with the whole thing.  Sort of like the IS_NPC()
changes.  Some of those are in right now, but the critical one [the actual
macro itself] has not been changed pending further analysis I don't want to
make at the moment.

George Greer, | Genius may have its limitations, but   (mostly) | stupidity is not thus handicapped.    |                  -- Elbert Hubbard

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST