From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Date: | 2018-08-15 15:52:37 |
Message-ID: | 20180815155237.pz5fgfmdo4cgqjta@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Hi,
On 2018-08-15 11:41:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, independently of whether to back-patch, it strikes me that what
> we ought to do in HEAD (after applying this) is to just assume we have
> C99-compliant behavior, and rip out the baroque logic in psnprintf
> and appendPQExpBufferVA that tries to deal with pre-C99 snprintf.
> I don't expect that'd save any really meaningful number of cycles,
> but at least it'd buy back the two added instructions mentioned above.
> I suppose we could put in a configure check that verifies whether
> the system snprintf returns the right value for overrun cases, though
> it's hard to believe there are any platforms that pass the 'z' check
> and would fail this one.
We could just mandate C99, more generally.
/me goes and hides in a bush.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 15:53:27 | Re: libpq should append auth failures, not overwrite |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 15:41:46 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-08-15 15:56:43 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 15:41:46 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |