Re: snprintf() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: snprintf()
Date
Msg-id 27082.1170474748@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to snprintf()  (Kate F <kate@cats.meow.at>)
Responses Re: snprintf()
List pgsql-hackers
Kate F <kate@cats.meow.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(), anunspecified 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kate F
Date:
Subject: snprintf()
Next
From: Kate F
Date:
Subject: Re: snprintf()