Rémi Denis-Courmont (12023-12-12): > ...and test for overflow errors in errno.m (which shall have been > zeroed beforehand). AFAIK, you need to do both if you want strict > error detection.
Or we can consider that 30064771114 is just another valid way if writing 42 = 042 = 0x2a. It would be better to check, but it is less critical than checking for garbage at the and, which itself is less critical than checking that the number is entirely absent. > Don't some distros forbid the use of the n specifier for (debatable) > "security reasons"? Or is that only for formatting, and not in > scanning? First time I ear of that. We use %n in quite a few places — not only code by me — and we did not have a problem. If there is a real security consideration about %n, I would like a pointer to the explanations; but I strongly doubt there are, it is just another conversion specifier with all the usual caveats. If not, and there are distros who forbid it for no valid reason, then I say to hell with them. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
