Subject: Re: 64-bit daddr_t problems with libsa
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 01/31/2003 01:30:07
> One possible side effect is that this now calls snprintf() instead of
> sprintf(). Whether or not this will cause yet another library routine
> to be pulled in I haven't checked.
snprintf isn't very big anyway - just a hook to vsnprintf, much
the same as sprintf - which uses -(size_t)buf as the length.
> The .XXX objects above revert to using
> sprintf(ebuf, "Unknown error: code %d", err);
> and is a little smaller (ignoring BSS).
Which may, or may not matter.
The ebuf overruns when int is 128 bits (give or take a byte).
It probably ought to be a snprintf call anyway - then the buffer
size could safely be halfed.
David Laight: firstname.lastname@example.org