Re: snprintf()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kate F <kate(at)cats(dot)meow(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: snprintf()
Date: 2007-02-03 03:52:28
Message-ID: 27082.1170474748@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kate F <kate(at)cats(dot)meow(dot)at> writes:
> ... does PostgreSQL replace my system's snprintf() prototype with
> its own implementation's?

We do on some platforms where configure decides the system version
is deficient ... I don't recall the exact conditions at the moment.
I wouldn't really have expected that to happen on any *BSD, but you
could look into the generated Makefile.global to find out.

> For reference, the relevant part of C99:
> 7.19.6.5 2 If n is zero, nothing is written, and s may be a null
> pointer.

For reference, the relevant part of the Single Unix Spec:

If the value of n is zero on a call to snprintf(), an
unspecified value less than 1 is returned.

So the behavior you'd like to depend on is unportable anyway, and
that coding will get rejected if submitted as a Postgres patch.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kate F 2007-02-03 04:11:25 Re: snprintf()
Previous Message Kate F 2007-02-03 03:40:18 snprintf()