We are already not compliant, since we overload %p. Not sure if I understand #1: If len is 0, we return 0 and don't check buff at all. Or do you mean a length of 0 (or 1) should set *buffer to NULL?
Assuming the later then +1 on both, not so much to be compliant but because it's the Right Thing :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > apr_snprintf and apr_vsnprintf are not compliant with the POSIX snprint > standard currently. There are two problems. 1) a length of 0 should > allow the buffer to be NULL, and it should return the computed length of > the requested string. This doesn't currently happen. 2) Specifying a > string precision doesn't work correctly. The common reason for specifying > a string precision, is that you don't ahve a NULL-terminated string, but > we always call strlen on the string that is passed in. Problem 2 is in > GNATS as bug 8554, and it has a fix. Problem 1 is not in any bug DB, but > I have a fix already. > > My question, is whether we really want to fix these problems, because we > don't _have_ to be POSIX compliant. My own opinion is that they should be > fixed. > > Ryan > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 550 Jean St > Oakland CA 94610 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
