Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-28 Thread Martin Maechler
> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk > on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:25:06 +0200 writes: vQ> Gabor Grothendieck wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, the documentation will also have to be amended, but >>> apart from that, would people see a big pr

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-27 Thread Wacek Kusnierczyk
Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, wrote: > >> Yes, the documentation will also have to be amended, but apart >> from that, would people see a big problem with the "8192" limit >> which now is suddenly of greater importance >> {{as I said all along; hence my question

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-27 Thread Waclaw . Marcin . Kusnierczyk
Martin Maechler wrote: > > vQ> sptinf('%q%s', 1) > > > vQ> still suggests that one uses %{f,e,g,a} for numerics, > vQ> while %s is pretty much valid, too. you see, in c > vQ> sprintf(buffer, "%s", 1) is destined to cause a > vQ> segfault, but in r it works -- so the error m

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-27 Thread Gabor Grothendieck
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, wrote: > > Yes, the documentation will also have to be amended, but apart > from that, would people see a big problem with the "8192" limit > which now is suddenly of greater importance > {{as I said all along;  hence my question to Wacek (and the >  R-develers)  

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-27 Thread maechler
> "vQ" == Waclaw Marcin Kusnierczyk > on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:40:27 +0200 (CEST) writes: vQ> Martin Maechler wrote: >> MM> well, it is basically (+ a few bytes ?) the same 8192 MM> limit that *is* documented. indeed, I was right with that..

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-25 Thread Waclaw . Marcin . Kusnierczyk
Martin Maechler wrote: > >>> MM> well, it is basically (+ a few bytes ?) >>> MM> the same 8192 limit that *is* documented. >>> >>> indeed, I was right with that.. >>> >>> >> hmm, i'd guess this limit is valid for all strings included in the >> output with any format? not just %s (

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-24 Thread Wacek Kusnierczyk
maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote: > > vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output > using the > vQ> format '%s'. It appears that there is a limit on the length of > strings included > vQ> with, e.g., the format '%d' beyond which surprising things happen > (o

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-24 Thread maechler
> "MM" == Martin Maechler > on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:40:22 +0200 (CEST) writes: > "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk > on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:54 +0200 writes: vQ> maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote: >>> vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the out

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-23 Thread maechler
> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk > on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:00:29 +0200 writes: vQ> Martin Maechler wrote: >>> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk >>> on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:54 +0200 writes: [..] [..] >> >> BTW, >> >> 1) spri

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-23 Thread Waclaw . Marcin . Kusnierczyk
Martin Maechler wrote: >> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk >> on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:54 +0200 writes: >> > > vQ> maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote: > >> > vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output > using the > vQ> format '%s'.

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-23 Thread maechler
> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk > on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:54 +0200 writes: vQ> maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote: >> vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output using the vQ> format '%s'. It appears that there is a limit on the length of string

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-23 Thread Wacek Kusnierczyk
maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch wrote: > > vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output > using the > vQ> format '%s'. It appears that there is a limit on the length of > strings included > vQ> with, e.g., the format '%d' beyond which surprising things happen > (o

Re: [Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-22 Thread maechler
> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk > on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:11 +0200 (CEST) writes: vQ> Full_Name: Wacek Kusnierczyk vQ> Version: 2.10.0 r48365 vQ> OS: Ubuntu 8.04 Linux 32bit vQ> Submission from: (NULL) (129.241.110.141) vQ> sprintf has a documented limit on strings

[Rd] incorrect output and segfaults from sprintf with %*d (PR#13667)

2009-04-21 Thread waku
Full_Name: Wacek Kusnierczyk Version: 2.10.0 r48365 OS: Ubuntu 8.04 Linux 32bit Submission from: (NULL) (129.241.110.141) sprintf has a documented limit on strings included in the output using the format '%s'. It appears that there is a limit on the length of strings included with, e.g., the for