On 10/23/2013 03:05 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
I would vote for choosing the standard we want vsnprintf() to follow (probably C99) and substituting a conforming implementation wherever "configure" detects that libc does not conform. We'll be shipping some replacement vsnprintf() in any case; we may as well use it to insulate the rest of our code from less-preferred variants.
Do you care about the snprintf behavior on very large buffers (larger than INT_MAX)? Then there's further complication, and it's an area where glibc behavior is likely to change in the future (because it is claimed that C99 and POSIX conflict, and glibc implements neither behavior).
-- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
