Subject: Re: snprintf_ss (Re: CVS commit: src/include)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/08/2006 08:17:18
> On Oct 29, 12:55am, email@example.com (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: snprintf_ss (Re: CVS commit: src/include)
> | > | anyway, i don't think trying to make stdio signal safe is a good idea.
> | >
> | > Neither do I. I am just trying to make vsnprintf() signal safe, and it
> | > has not proven easy.
> | i meant, i don't think trying to make vsnprintf signal safe is a good idea.
> | because it makes futher development of it nightmare.
> | the functionality ssp needs is very limited and it's trivial to implement
> | a dedicated signal safe logger for it, isn't it?
> Yes, that is true. It could use a minimal logger.
can you consider to revert _ss changes?
i think there are enough number of objections and alternative suggestions.