Comment 87 for bug 1085526

(In reply to Adam Reichold from comment #81)
> (In reply to Adrian Johnson from comment #78)
> > I agree that the two calls to doGetChars and updateHash should be merged but
> > I don't think a for loop is the best way to process loops where the
> > increment is not exactly the same on each iteration. Maybe something like
> > this:
> >
> > void FormFieldSignature::hashSignedByteRange(SignatureHandler *handler,
> > Goffset start, Goffset len)
> > {
> > const int CHUNK_SIZE = 4096;
> > unsigned char buffer[CHUNK_SIZE];
> > Goffset i = 0;
> > int byte_count = CHUNK_SIZE;
> >
> > doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
> > while (i < len)
> > {
> > if (i + CHUNK_SIZE > len)
> > byte_count = len - i;
> >
> > doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
> > handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
> > i += byte_count;
> > }
> > }
>
> I was thinking of something like
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
> for (Goffset offset = 0; offset < len; offset += CHUNK_SIZE)
> {
> const int byte_count = min(CHUNK_SIZE, len - offset);
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
> handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
> }
>
> to make the loop more regular as we don't care if offset > len instead of
> offset == len after the last iteration. (That code was not tested or even
> compiled.)
>
> > I don't mind if we fix all this later. It doesn't have to hold up the
> > initial release.
>
> Maybe if there is some external pressure to release this, but otherwise I'd
> propose polishing it now, since there is a certain momentum not to touch
> working code once it is released.

If we're too picky it may just die in this branch and never be merged :D

>
> Best regards, Adam.