On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/06/10 06:31, Andres P wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> So, any ideas on the best way to approach this? >> >> Counting 13 instances of asprintf, so voting "no" to both suggestions so >> far. > > What does the number of asprintf's have to do with this?
I hope you don't suggest changing each to if(!asprintf(...)) > > Anyway, voting no does not count if you do not provide a better solution. > The return value of asprintf needs to be checked when compiling with > -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 which I want to use with --enable-debug. So something > has to be done... You already have a pm_vasprintf wrapper, so I don't see why you couldn't make a asprintf wrapper here. Both of these solutions, the original proposition and writing a wrapper, are ultimately workarounds since the parent functions need to be changed from void so that nobody is reduced to a little shy message log instead of an exit. Why would you change this just to compile with fortify_source when it's showing inherent problems that are more important? btw, http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf/ Andres P
