| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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() |