Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> Look good to me.
OK, the patch has been applied.
Bruno
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:54 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Paul Eggert noted that vasnprintf should be able to return strings of length
> > INT_MAX. Here's a patch to that effect.
>
> Yoann, is the vsnprintf.c patch OK with you? It corresponds to Paul's fixes
> to snprintf.c a week ago.
Hi
Hi,
Paul Eggert noted that vasnprintf should be able to return strings of length
> INT_MAX. Here's a patch to that effect.
Yoann, is the vsnprintf.c patch OK with you? It corresponds to Paul's fixes
to snprintf.c a week ago.
2006-08-26 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* vasnprintf.c
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not needed. vasnprintf already does this check.
But my next bug report was going to be for vasnprintf, since
vasnprintf should not do the INT_MAX check. vasnprintf's API does not
suffer from the INT_MAX limit, and there's no need to inflict this
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I've added him (Bruno, if you object I'll remove you :-).
It's fine, I don't object :-), since snprintf is related to vasnprintf.
Bruno
Paul Eggert wrote:
> The first thing I noticed was this comment about two size_t variables:
>
> if (len > size - 1) /* equivalent to: (size > 0 && len >= size) */
>
> The comment is not correct if size_t promotes to int
This is a border case; you can fix it by adding a cast:
if (len >
