From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add compat/vsnprintf.c for systems that returns -1 on maxsize reached Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: <47D4FF55.8020909@viscovery.net> References: <200803041459.29000.michal.rokos@nextsoft.cz> <47CD78C9.80003@viscovery.net> <200803100959.43611.michal.rokos@nextsoft.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: GIT To: Michal Rokos X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 10 10:30:02 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JYeKX-0000Om-1a for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:30:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750911AbYCJJ25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:28:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750973AbYCJJ25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:28:57 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:32681 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750904AbYCJJ25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:28:57 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1JYeIl-0006Mv-Gy; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:28:11 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70CF546; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:28:53 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <200803100959.43611.michal.rokos@nextsoft.cz> X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_95=3 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michal Rokos schrieb: > Hello, > > I've managed to run testcase on > Tru64 OSF1 V5.1 2650 alpha > and it returns > case1: 0 > case2: 4 > case3: 5 > case4: 5 > which is sad since our vsnprintf() cannot detect this ill behaviour. Ugh! We'd need to run the loop until we get a return value that is not negative and less than the size specified... -- Hannes