marshal.h now provides a macro put_fmt() which allows you to write
arbitrary printf-formatted data to an arbitrary BinarySink.
We already had this facility for strbufs in particular, in the form of
strbuf_catf(). That was able to take advantage of knowing the inner
structure of a strbuf to minimise memory allocation (it would snprintf
directly into the strbuf's existing buffer if possible). For a general
black-box BinarySink we can't do that, so instead we dupvprintf into a
temporary buffer.
For consistency, I've removed strbuf_catf, and converted all uses of
it into the new put_fmt - and I've also added an extra vtable method
in the BinarySink API, so that put_fmt can still use strbuf_catf's
more efficient memory management when talking to a strbuf, and fall
back to the simpler strategy when that's not available.
I just happened to notice that just below my huge comment explaining
the two command-line splitting policies, there's a smaller one that
refers to it as '(see large comment below)'. It's not below - it's
above!
That was because the older parts of that comment had previously been
inside split_into_argv(), until I moved the explanation further up the
file to the top level. Another consequence of that was that the older
section of the comment was wrapped to a strangely narrow line width,
because it had previously been indented further right.
Folded the two comments together, and rewrapped the narrow paragraphs.
I've finally got round to updating this system for the fixed
(post-VS7) command-line splitting. That means I need to regenerate the
table in the big comment. So here's an automated method of doing it
that doesn't require me to read off the output of -generate in an
error-prone manual way.
Something weird was happening in the string handling which caused the
output to be full of the kind of gibberish you expect to see from
unterminated strings. Rather than debug it in detail, I've taken
advantage of now having the utils library conveniently available, and
simply used a strbuf, which I _know_ works sensibly.
I found these while going through the code, and decided if we're going
to have them then we should compile them. They didn't all compile
first time, proving my point :-)
I've enhanced the tree234 test so that it has a verbose option, which
by default is off.
Now that the new CMake build system is encouraging us to lay out the
code like a set of libraries, it seems like a good idea to make them
look more _like_ libraries, by putting things into separate modules as
far as possible.
This fixes several previous annoyances in which you had to link
against some object in order to get a function you needed, but that
object also contained other functions you didn't need which included
link-time symbol references you didn't want to have to deal with. The
usual offender was subsidiary supporting programs including misc.c for
some innocuous function and then finding they had to deal with the
requirements of buildinfo().
This big reorganisation introduces three new subdirectories called
'utils', one at the top level and one in each platform subdir. In each
case, the directory contains basically the same files that were
previously placed in the 'utils' build-time library, except that the
ones that were extremely miscellaneous (misc.c, utils.c, uxmisc.c,
winmisc.c, winmiscs.c, winutils.c) have been split up into much
smaller pieces.
