Bruce Korb wrote:
> sometimes, I do want the seg fault. So, how about selectable behavior?
If you want to always get a SEGV when the user passes a NULL argument, you
will have to arrange that through your code. POSIX doesn't guarantee you a
SEGV here.
90% of your users, at least, will be on glib
Aaron Stone wrote:
Crashing on null %s args puts gnulib at odds with all other open source
lib's -- glibc, *BSD libc's, so on. People use gnulib to get the gnuish
behavior on other platforms. Being safe about nulls is a gnuish behavior
that many people appreciate.
Indeed. Then, sometimes, I do
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 10:55 +0100, James Youngman wrote:
> On 5/24/06, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then the argument about the glibc behaviour and the *BSD libc behaviour is
> > moot: if there's a single platform where it crashes, and if the standard
> > says
> > that NULL are i
On 5/24/06, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then the argument about the glibc behaviour and the *BSD libc behaviour is
moot: if there's a single platform where it crashes, and if the standard says
that NULL are invalid arguments, gnulib's implementation can crash as well.
I would go fu
Hi,
Aaron Stone wrote:
> When glibc gets a null pointer in one of the printf-family of functions
> for a %s argument, it prints "(null)" and doesn't crash. All of the
> *BSD's libc's also print "(null)".
>
> Gnulib, when using its own vasnprintf implementation, does crash. The
> principal offender
Hi,
When glibc gets a null pointer in one of the printf-family of functions
for a %s argument, it prints "(null)" and doesn't crash. All of the
*BSD's libc's also print "(null)".
Gnulib, when using its own vasnprintf implementation, does crash. The
principal offender is Solaris, for which a) thi
