Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:29:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Alain Magloire <alainm AT rcsm DOT ece DOT mcgill DOT ca>
Subject: Re: {v,}snprintf.c ???
In-Reply-To: <37643242.C52AE48F@cartsys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990614102906.21962L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> glibc does as you expected: it returns the number of characters without
> touching the buffer.  (You can even pass NULL.)

That's what C9X seems to imply, including the NULL pointer.  Thanks
for checking.

> I think the cast to signed int is bogus too.

If we don't need to compare it with 1, the cast can go away as well.
Since the prototype uses size_t, it is clear the function expects an
unsigned value, so passing a negative value is looking for trouble
anyway.