Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:03:10PM +0000, 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...
> libc' snprintf can return -1 at least with negative `len' and set 
> `errno' to EINVAL.

> libsa' snprintf ends up in vsnprintf() which return `sbuf - buf', `buf'
> is our buffer, `sbuf' is a cursor inside the buffer, so it can't 
> return -1.

Ok, I was looking at the wrong implementation (sys/kern/subr_prf.c). sys/lib/libsa/subr_prf.c
seems to be the relevant one. Is that just a fallback which is effectively unused? I don't
see how that code supports field-widths (e.g., "%-39s").

-- 
Christian