On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 21:49 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 21:22 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> >>> +int snprintf(char *buffer, size_t bufsize, const char *fmt, ...)
> >
> >> >>> + if ((int)bufsize <= 0) return -1;
> >
> >> If bufsize > INT_MAX, that cast has unspecified behaviour.
> >
> > No, it's implementation-defined (you're probably confusing it with
> > arithmetic, but casts are not he same).
>
> I am not confused, you are.
>
> 3.4.4
> unspecified behavior
> use of an unspecified value, or other behavior where this
> International Standard provides two or more possibilities and imposes
> no further requirements on which is chosen in any instance
OK, I guess "unspecified" does in principle also include the more
specific class of "implementation-defined". Let's just say that your
terminology was misleading then ("unspecified" was not a good
description of the case, even if the word technically does apply).
> > BTW I wonder what perfectly standard-conforming snprintf is supposed to
> > do with huge sizes. The size limit has type size_t, but the return value
> EOVERFLOW
That's what I'd expect a practical implementation to return, but is
there something in the standard that actually makes this
standard-conforming?
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
