Jim Jagielski wrote:
> At 10:17 AM +0300 7/11/02, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
>> But back to the subject at hand.
>>
>> I'm a bit uncertain _how_ am I supposed to be using apr_snprintf so
>> code doesn't break the next time it's behaviour changes? I'm a bit
>> on a foul mood here, sorry, but this was supposed to be just a
>> minor checkup to see if the return value included the nul-byte or
>> not.
>>
>> So, if I want the length, without including the nul-byte - I need
>> to compare the return value against the buffer length I passed in,
>> and substract one if they are equal? I'd like to _depend_ on
>> something working this way, if I do it this way.
>
> Hmmm... In the current code, if they are equal then it means either
> it fully fit the buffer or was truncated. So yes. Recall that
> ap(r)_snprintf() copies at most size-1, so the length of the
> returned string can only be a maximum of size-1.
>
> I agree it looks like we're compromising vformatter for a bug in
> apr_psprintf...
OK, so if I make a fix to apr_psprintf to fix it, we can remove the
kludge in vformatter?
After that apr_snprintf returns len-1 if the data just fit and len if
it got truncated. Is this what is wanted?
If so, then the canonical code for getting the amount of chars written
would be:
#define SNPRINTF_MAXLEN
int chars = apr_snprintf(buffer, SNPRINTF_MAXLEN, format, ...);
if(chars >= SNPRINTF_MAXLEN) chars = SNPRINTF_MAXLEN-1;
I'll try and code the fix for this once I get a confirmation on this.
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 11 17:18:55 2002