[clamav-users] ClamAV Scan - Data Read vs Data Scanned

[Paul Kosinski]

"This is a display problem, not a storage problem."

I disagree. When the counts in info.blocks and info.rblocks are counts
of 16kb *blocks*, keeping precise track of the reading and scanning of
small files is impossible, no matter how clever the display code is.



On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:44:18 +1100
"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt at acm.org> wrote:

> On 03/11/2020 16:00, Paul Kosinski via clamav-users wrote:
> > "(don't you love C?)"
> > 
> > I have never understood why the originators of C didn't give integers
> > explicit widths in bits: their scheme made C code often non-portable.
> >   
> Because C is intended to be very, very close to the machine 
> architecture, only a step or tow above assembler, or doing the 
> bit-twiddling by hand.
> 
> > When I wrote code in the mid 1990s for the DEC Alpha, ints were 32 bits
> > while longs were 64 (unlike "standard" C). This made Alpha C code not
> > portable to lesser CPUs. On the other hand, when I wrote C on DOS for
> > the IBM PC in the late 1980s, ints were only 8 bits! It took some time
> > to figure out why my C-compliant code failed so badly. In spite of all
> > that, having started programming before C was invented, I can safely
> > say that C is better than its predecessors for software like ClamAV.
> >   
> Uh, not a good example, I've written C code that is still in use on 
> everything from 80286s (yes, Virginia, there are people who keep them 
> alive, not just because they're cheap, sometimes just because they 
> *can*) to DEC Alphas and Power and SPARC64 and PA-RISC, it's just a 
> matter of knowing what you are doing, and sticking to it...
> 
> > P.S. Good code these days tends to use typedefs defining things like
> > int32, uint64 etc. A shame the original ClamAV coders didn't do that.
> >   
> And none of this has *anything* to do with the original problem - seeing 
> 0 when the value is 0.0000000001, or so.
> 
> This is a display problem, not a storage problem.  You could declare 
> something as PIC(9999999.99999999999999) and you will still only see 0 
> if you told it to display two decimal places.
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 		Gary	B-)