From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <imun@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng1.m.smailru.net (smtpng1.m.smailru.net [94.100.181.251])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA3454765E0
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 25 Dec 2020 12:37:30 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 12:37:24 +0300
From: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20201225093724.GE5396@tarantool.org>
References: <cover.1608142899.git.skaplun@tarantool.org>
 <0adaa12ef5be0efc1d9c79ab746b8149c252d661.1608142899.git.skaplun@tarantool.org>
 <20201221092415.GT5396@tarantool.org> <20201224064656.GH9101@root>
 <4216B30D-84B1-4A46-8DD7-C1A51587D7FF@tarantool.org>
 <20201224212037.GM9101@root>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201224212037.GM9101@root>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v1 03/11] profile: introduce
 profiler writing module
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: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Sergey,

On 25.12.20, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> On 24.12.20, Sergey Ostanevich wrote:

<snipped>

> > 
> > +void lj_wbuf_init(struct lj_wbuf *buf, lj_wbuf_writer writer, void *ctx,
> > +                 uint8_t *mem, size_t size)
> > +{
> > +  lua_assert(size >= LEB128_U64_MAXSIZE);
> > 
> > Is it meaningful to allocate just 10bytes?
> 
> No, but at least we should check it. We need at least 10bytes buffer to
> write huge addresses leb128-encoded.

Again, this is a *general purpose write buffer*, so I agree with Sergos,
that this assert looks odd here.

> 

<snipped>

> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Sergey Kaplun

-- 
Best regards,
IM