David Laight wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:11:36AM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:
> > Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > > A first patch is available here:
> > > http://www.sigfpe.info/netbsd/proc_swaps.diff
> > 
> >  * You should check the return value of snprintf() with "<= 0" instead of "== 0".
> >    At least when remaining reached zero, snprintf() will return -1 and not 0.
> 
> Will it? Does a conformant [1] snprintf() ever return -1 ?
> Time to RTFM...

Either that or UTSL. It's snprintf(9), not snprintf(3).

-- 
Christian