On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 04:29:30AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:00:57AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > So basically a variation of the old problem of calling memcpy when one > > > meant to use memmove. I'm actually surprised that type of call to sprintf > > > ever worked reliably with optimization, even without _FORTIFY_SOURCE. > > > But, like memcpy vs. memmove, it's the sort of thing that's horribly > > > difficult to debug. > > This is something that can be tested for in s*printf() itself: deoptimizing > > it by a single comparison is probably worth catching a relatively popular > > error. > Do we have data about its popularity?
I've heard about this idiom several times already, from different sources. Whether the sources were copying from one another remains a separate question... -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130920224437.ga16...@angband.pl
