Skip to content

MessageBuffer usage improvement #258

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 10, 2022
Merged

MessageBuffer usage improvement #258

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 10, 2022

Conversation

@Hadatko
Copy link
Member

@Hadatko Hadatko commented Mar 7, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Signed-off-by: Cervenka Dusan [email protected]

Pull request

Choose Correct

  • bug
  • feature

Describe the pull request

#257
#256

To Reproduce

Expected behavior

Screenshots

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • OS:
  • eRPC Version:

Steps you didn't forgot to do

  • I checked if other PR isn't solving this issue.
  • I read Contribution details and did appropriate actions.
  • PR code is tested.
  • PR code is formatted.

Additional context

@Hadatko Hadatko added the bug label Mar 7, 2022
@Hadatko Hadatko added this to the 1.9.1 milestone Mar 7, 2022
@Hadatko Hadatko self-assigned this Mar 7, 2022
@Hadatko Hadatko requested a review from MichalPrincNXP March 7, 2022 14:12
amgross
amgross suggested changes Mar 8, 2022
View reviewed changes
@Hadatko
MessageBuffer usage improvement
b48561a 
Signed-off-by: Cervenka Dusan <[email protected]>
@Hadatko Hadatko force-pushed the bugfix/memory_smashing_with_big_length branch from d86cf95 to b48561a Compare March 8, 2022 15:27
@Hadatko
Fixed buffer offset in write.
9b6d823 
Signed-off-by: Cervenka Dusan <[email protected]>
@Hadatko
Copy link
Member Author

Hadatko commented Mar 8, 2022

Thank you for PR review. I did it too quickly.
I accidentaly force pushed (in current job customer is asking less commits more force pushes :D )

@amgross
Copy link
Contributor

amgross commented Mar 9, 2022

BTW, I found out I was wrong in comment above and it is OK to check NULL with if(pointer), but still I don't like it and it is better to have uniformity

@Hadatko
Copy link
Member Author

Hadatko commented Mar 9, 2022

BTW, I found out I was wrong in comment above and it is OK to check NULL with if(pointer), but still I don't like it and it is better to have uniformity

No problem. Misra is also suggesting explicit conditions. Thank you for your engagement.

@MichalPrincNXP MichalPrincNXP merged commit 73d4abe into EmbeddedRPC:develop Mar 10, 2022
@MichalPrincNXP
Copy link
Member

MichalPrincNXP commented Mar 10, 2022

Thank you for the effort!

@Hadatko Hadatko deleted the bugfix/memory_smashing_with_big_length branch March 21, 2022 06:48
@Hadatko Hadatko linked an issue Mar 30, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request
Optional memory smashing with big length #256
Closed
@Hadatko Hadatko linked an issue Apr 20, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request
Unneeded length 0 checking #257
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@MichalPrincNXP MichalPrincNXP MichalPrincNXP approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@amgross amgross amgross approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@Hadatko Hadatko

Labels

bug

Milestone

1.9.1

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unneeded length 0 checking Optional memory smashing with big length

3 participants

@Hadatko @amgross @MichalPrincNXP