On Mon Aug 04 16:29:03 2008, coke wrote: > As I mentioned on IRC, I'd recommend just removing it instead of > adding another probe we're not sure we need. We can always come back > to this ticket and grab your patch for later application if it we need > to. >
Good enough. Andy (who originally wrote it) doesn't care either way, so I'm taking out the extra conditional and marking this rt as resolved. It'd be safer to use vsnprintf, but this is the only place it'd be used and a single use doesn't justify the extra configuration and testing code. The code in question was removed in r30028. If this ever gets revived, kid51 noted that there should be some documentation stating the difference between vsprintf and vsnprintf, and that a t/steps/auto_vsnprintf-01.t should also be added.
