On Wed 2016-11-30 10:14:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Resending with the full CC list as my email client has clobbered it in
> the previous attempt for some reason]
>
> On Tue 29-11-16 16:19:01, Sebastian Duda wrote:
> > snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the
> >
On Wed 2016-11-30 10:14:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Resending with the full CC list as my email client has clobbered it in
> the previous attempt for some reason]
>
> On Tue 29-11-16 16:19:01, Sebastian Duda wrote:
> > snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the
> >
[Resending with the full CC list as my email client has clobbered it in
the previous attempt for some reason]
On Tue 29-11-16 16:19:01, Sebastian Duda wrote:
> snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the data.
> Thus the execution of
> snprintf(NULL, 0,
[Resending with the full CC list as my email client has clobbered it in
the previous attempt for some reason]
On Tue 29-11-16 16:19:01, Sebastian Duda wrote:
> snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the data.
> Thus the execution of
> snprintf(NULL, 0,
snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the data.
Thus the execution of
snprintf(NULL, 0, "[%5lu.00] ", (unsigned long)ts);
has no effect on program.
The substitution with 0 increases the readability of the code.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Duda
snprintf((char *) ?, 0, ...); always returns Zero and doesn't change the data.
Thus the execution of
snprintf(NULL, 0, "[%5lu.00] ", (unsigned long)ts);
has no effect on program.
The substitution with 0 increases the readability of the code.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Duda
6 matches
Mail list logo
