Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> The Single Unix Spec's definition of wcsftime says that the above >>> risks a buffer overrun, and the correct second argument would be >>> MAX_L10N_DATA. Now I realize that SUS is a poor guide for >>> Windows-specific code, but are you sure this is right? > >> Now that I read it again, I think you're right. What MS says is: >> "If the total number of characters, including the terminating null, is >> more than maxsize, both strftime and wcsftime return 0 and the contents >> of strDest are indeterminate." > >> The important difference being "character" vs "bytes", right? > > SUS phrases it as > > "If the total number of resulting wide-character codes including the > terminating null wide-character code is no more than maxsize, wcsftime() > returns the number of wide-character codes placed into the array pointed > to by wcs, not including the terminating null wide-character > code. Otherwise 0 is returned and the contents of the array are > indeterminate." > > so it's very clear that maxsize is counted in wchars. > > Perhaps someone could experiment to double-check what Windows does.
Read up a bit more and compared, it definitely seems to mean the same thing. My tests seem to agree as well. I'll change it to MAX_L10N_DATA and strlcpy. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
