Re: Patch for snprintf problem (bug #1000650) 5-th try

Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> 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.
>

OK please commit it.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue