From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 16:07:40 |
Message-ID: | 20180815160740.GD3326@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> 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.
*cough* +1 *cough*
> /me goes and hides in a bush.
/me runs
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-15 16:11:00 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 16:05:55 | Re: libpq should append auth failures, not overwrite |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-15 16:11:00 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-15 16:01:28 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |