Francois Ingelrest wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Easy to reproduce. Turns out that this line causes it:
> >
> > sprintf(tmp, format, f);
> >
> > Here "format" is "%f" and "f" is your value 1e+308. The result is an
> > awful long string of numbers. I suppose it's about 308 digits. How big
> > does "tmp" need to be to hold any result here? I don't think %f has a
> > way of specifying a maximal field width.
>
> You could use snprintf() to specify the maximum length of tmp.
Unfortunately, snprintf() is not available everywhere, and the
implementations are not always working in a portable way.
The code actually is inside vim_snprintf(), which is the Vim
implementation of snprintf(). But it still uses sprintf() to do the
difficult work.
I guess that 1e308 is about the largest number supported by "double".
At least for me 1e309 results in "infinity". Would it be safe enough to
use a buffer of about 350 chars? Or are there platforms where "double"
can be much bigger?
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
271. You collect hilarious signatures from all 250 mailing lists you
are subscribed to.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
