Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I can't duplicate that here. It looks to me like the probable > >> explanation is a broken or incompatible version of strerror_r() on your > >> machine. Does the failure go away if you build without thread-safety? > > > Yes it does. > > I'll see if I can run with a debugging libc and find it. > > First you might want to check which flavor of strerror_r() your platform > has --- does it return int or char* ? The Linux man page for > strerror_r() says > > strerror_r() with prototype as given above is specified by SUSv3, and > was in use under Digital Unix and HP Unix. An incompatible function, > with prototype > > char *strerror_r(int errnum, char *buf, size_t n); > > is a GNU extension used by glibc (since 2.0), and must be regarded as > obsolete in view of SUSv3. The GNU version may, but need not, use the > user-supplied buffer. If it does, the result may be truncated in case > the supplied buffer is too small. The result is always NUL-terminated. > > The code we have appears to assume that the result will always be placed > in the user-supplied buffer, which is apparently NOT what the glibc > version does.
What does "may, but need not, use the user-supplied buffer" supposed to mean in practical terms. How do they expect us to use it? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
