Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:12:58PM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> >
> > I make patch againist CVS after yours huge commit. What's your opinion?
> >
>
> Is the second parameter of snprintf_add needed ?
> Aren't the parameter values always strlen(the first parameter) ?
You're right. I think more about it and "add" means add to the end
so I changed the patch as you pointed.
> Is snprintf_len needed instead of snprintf ?
> Though the current code ignores snprintf errors, it's simply
> my negligence..
I'm voting for keeping safer snprintf_len. But I can change it if
you wish.
New patch attached.
Regards,
Luf