On 9/17/2012 10:53 PM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 10:53, Magnus Fromreide <magfr(a)lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 09:54 +0530, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>>> On 17 September 2012 21:58, Chris Ferron <chris.e.ferron(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/17/2012 07:34 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     #include "devices/device.h"
>>>>> diff --git a/src/process/do_process.cpp b/src/process/do_process.cpp
>>>>> index eaef7f1..c9d6b0b 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/process/do_process.cpp
>>>>> +++ b/src/process/do_process.cpp
>>>>> @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ void process_update_display(void)
>>>>>                 if (!show_power)
>>>>>                         strcpy(power, "          ");
>>>>>                 sprintf(name, "%s", all_power[i]->type());
>>>>> -               while (mbstowcs(NULL,name,0) < 14) strcat(name, " ");
>>>>> +               while (mbstowcs(NULL,name,20) < 14) strcat(name, " ");
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mbstowcs(NULL,name,0) is a test. return will be count. while catches the
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> Agree. The Android bionic libc version of mbstowcs always returns zero if
>>> max(third parameter) is zero, resulting in infinite loop.
>>
>> Have you reported the bug in the library to Google? If the first
>> argument is NULL posix says the third argument should be ignored.
> 
> I don't see bionic libc claiming to be posix compliant.

can you make a small wrapper in your android compat header to cope with this case?
(in the idea of keeping all the junk to work around a buggy platform in one place)