Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@businesswebsoftware.com> wrote:
[]
This is one of the reasons I find the *snprintf functions to be pure evil. They don't return -1 when the output would be too long, they return the size they WOULD have written if the buffer was large enough.
That's not evil; it's extremely useful if you want to dynamically allocate a large enough buffer. All you have to do is check that the return value is less than or equal to the length you passed in.
Man pages on my RH 9 AS say that a return value that is *equal* or greater than the size of the buffer means that the buffer is too small.
Right, and that agrees with POSIX. I somehow misread the specification first time around. <snip>
Shouldn't it be
size_t(n) >= sizeof(buf)
?
Yes, it should. Ben.