Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Manlio Perillo <manlio(dot)perillo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm
Date: 2013-10-23 06:55:13
Message-ID: 526772D1.7040101@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/23/2013 03:05 AM, Noah Misch wrote:

> I would vote for choosing the standard we want vsnprintf() to follow (probably
> C99) and substituting a conforming implementation wherever "configure" detects
> that libc does not conform. We'll be shipping some replacement vsnprintf() in
> any case; we may as well use it to insulate the rest of our code from
> less-preferred variants.

Do you care about the snprintf behavior on very large buffers (larger
than INT_MAX)? Then there's further complication, and it's an area
where glibc behavior is likely to change in the future (because it is
claimed that C99 and POSIX conflict, and glibc implements neither behavior).

--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Weimer 2013-10-23 07:02:30 Re: Reasons not to like asprintf
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2013-10-23 05:01:39 Re: Add \i option to bring in the specified file as a quoted literal