Hi, On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 08:42:43PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> The new version of the patch is below. Hm, what about dropping/replacing the "_PATH" bit, as discussed in the other subthread?... > I wonder if I can use __snprintf(). The code in the original glibc > doesn't use it. I'm not a glibc hacker; but I would be very surprised if it was a problem... > + __snprintf (sock_serv_env_name, 30, "SOCK_SERV_%d_PATH", domain); I'd say use "sizeof sock_serv_env_name", rather than hard-coding 30, for better robustness... -antrik-
