David Rowley writes:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. As a separate matter, it might be useful to revise stringinfo.c
>> and the asprintf code so that *if* the returned value is larger than the
>> given buffer size, we use it as a guide to resizing, avoiding the possib
Florian Weimer writes:
> Do you care about the snprintf behavior on very large buffers (larger
> than INT_MAX)? Then there's further complication, and it's an area
> where glibc behavior is likely to change in the future (because it is
> claimed that C99 and POSIX conflict, and glibc implement
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. As a separate matter, it might be useful to revise stringinfo.c
> and the asprintf code so that *if* the returned value is larger than the
> given buffer size, we use it as a guide to resizing, avoiding the possible
> need to loop multiple
On 10/23/2013 03:05 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
I would vote for choosing the standard we want vsnprintf() to follow (probably
C99) and substituting a conforming implementation wherever "configure" detects
that libc does not conform. We'll be shipping some replacement vsnprintf() in
any case; we may
Noah Misch writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:00:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. As a separate matter, it might be useful to revise stringinfo.c
>> and the asprintf code so that *if* the returned value is larger than the
>> given buffer size, we use it as a guide to resizing, avoiding the
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:00:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. As a separate matter, it might be useful to revise stringinfo.c
> and the asprintf code so that *if* the returned value is larger than the
> given buffer size, we use it as a guide to resizing, avoiding the possible
> need to loop m
Manlio Perillo writes:
> On 22/10/2013 09:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. src/port/asprintf.c exhibits a truly touching faith that vsnprintf will
>> report exactly the number of bytes that would have been required, even if
>> the buffer is not that large. While this is what is specified in recent
>> ve
On 22/10/2013 09:58, Tom Lane wrote:
So I returned from vacation only to find that the buildfarm has a bad case
of acne. All the Windows members are red or pink, and have been for
awhile. Sigh.
After some research I believe that I understand the reason for the CHECK
failures, at least:
1. src
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I returned from vacation only to find that the buildfarm has a bad case
> of acne. All the Windows members are red or pink, and have been for
> awhile. Sigh.
>
> After some research I believe that I understand the reason for the CHECK
> fail
