apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: apr_snprintf not compliant
Date Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:31:20 GMT
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>We are already not compliant, since we overload %p.
>>Not sure if I understand #1: If len is 0, we return 0 and don't check
>>buff at all. Or do you mean a length of 0 (or 1) should set
>>*buffer to NULL?
> right now, if length is 0, we return 0, and that is it.  However, the spec
> says that if length is zero, then *buffer is allowed to be NULL, but
> whether it is or isn't, *buffer isn't modified, and snprintf returns the
> number of characters that _would_ be returned if length was infinite.
> An example:
> apr_snprintf(p, NULL, 0, "%s BAR", "FOO");
> currently returns 0, after the changes, it would return 7.

8, surely?



http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

Available for contract work.

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

View raw message