/prog/ - look at these fools

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 20:01

https://github.com/zear/sabre/blob/master/libzip/bits.c#L99

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:12

look at this fool posting a link that i'm not clicking

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:14

>>2

#define Buf_size (8 * 2*sizeof(char))
/* Number of bits used within bi_buf. (bi_buf might be implemented on
 * more than 16 bits on some systems.)
 */

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:31

>>3
It's just nonstandard compliant.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 4:22

>>4
Tottally turned into anus, man.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 12:02

>>4
With regard to which standard? This is valid C, even though it is completely pointless as the macro will always be 16.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 15:04

>>6
I guess "helpful unicode friendly" 4-byte chars would ruin this illusion.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 16:19

>>7
The macro would still be 16. Again, which standard is violated here?

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 17:16

It's a bug (doesn't do what the comment says) and it shows how stupid the people who wrote the code are.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

A missing facet if you're just looking at >>3 is this preceding line:

local unsigned short bi_buf;

So not only is there an assumption of 8-bit bytes, but that unsigned short is at least the size of 2 chars.

But then the fuckers multiply by another 8 for no apparent reason.

THey're working with specific bit-level file formats and playing shitty games with C's exposing of potentially variable machine word widths. What dumbfucks.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

>>10

But then the fuckers multiply by another 8 for no apparent reason.

and I brain farted, too. Ignore.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 0:04

libzip my dick.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 5:13

Should've used CHAR_BITS

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 10:32

>>10

So not only is there an assumption of 8-bit bytes, but that unsigned short is at least the size of 2 chars.

No, sizeof(char) is always 1. You need at least 16 bits to represent USHRT_MAX, and 8 * 2 * 1 happens to be 16.

>>13
Yes, because the input and output format should depend on the machine.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 11:26

>>14

8 * 2 * 1 happens to be 16.

Are you fucking with me, you little shit? I will end you. Pray to your mothers that Jesus smites you before I get the chance.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:41

>>15
But Jesus doesn't exist.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:43

>>16
You'll be a believer when I'm done with you son.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 13:07

>>17
But believers can't make Jesus exist.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 14:53

>>18
You don't actually know that. You only believe you know that. Take Epistemology 101 and then come back to this thread.

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-22 6:06

>>14
It's amazing how irrelevant your response to >>10 is.

look at these fools

1 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 20:01

2 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:12

3 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:14

4 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:31

5 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 4:22

6 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 12:02

7 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 15:04

8 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 16:19

9 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 17:16

10 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

11 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

12 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 0:04

13 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 5:13

14 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 10:32

15 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 11:26

16 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:41

17 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:43

18 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 13:07

19 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 14:53

20 Name: Anonymous 2016-02-22 6:06

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 20:01

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:12

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:14

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-19 22:31

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 4:22

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 12:02

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 16:19

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 17:16

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-20 20:30

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 0:04

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 5:13

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 10:32

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 11:26

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:41

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 12:43

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 13:07

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-21 14:53

Name: Anonymous 2016-02-22 6:06