From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com (mail-lj1-f196.google.com
 [209.85.208.196])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9433945C305
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sat,  5 Dec 2020 21:52:30 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id r18so10482853ljc.2
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sat, 05 Dec 2020 10:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:52:28 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201205185228.GB2303@grain>
References: <20201204153003.175555-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20201204153003.175555-2-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <6ba34f0c-8ce5-75ae-2dd7-19e22432e744@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6ba34f0c-8ce5-75ae-2dd7-19e22432e744@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 1/4] backtrace: allow to specify
 destination buffer
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: Mons Anderson <v.perepelitsa@corp.mail.ru>, tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 07:30:28PM +0100, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> Thanks for the patch!
> >  char *
> > -backtrace(void)
> > +backtrace(char *start, char *end)
> 
> Why so strange choice of arguments? We almost always use char* + size_t,
> except for a few cases such as code working with tuples, where we 'save'
> time on not calculating 'end' in each next stack frame. Lets be consistent
> and use char* + size_t, not to raise unnecessary questions for such simple
> code.

Since start/end were calculated inside I juts moved them to arguments.
No problem, will use size instead.