Re: [bug-gnulib] removing asctime_r, ctime_r from the time_r module

2006-04-24 Thread Paul Eggert
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unlike gets() and the termcap functions, these functions don't need a buffer > of arbitrary size. Only the initially specified size was too small. The > functions would be OK to use in GNU programs if a buffer of size 100 was > used rather than a buffer o

Re: [bug-gnulib] removing asctime_r, ctime_r from the time_r module

2006-04-24 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bruno Haible on 4/24/2006 6:12 AM: > Paul Eggert wrote on 2006-03-10: >> I recently redisovered the fact that asctime_r and ctime_r, like >> asctime and ctime, are unsafe functions in the same sense that gets is >> unsafe: they can overrun

Re: [bug-gnulib] removing asctime_r, ctime_r from the time_r module

2006-04-24 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert wrote on 2006-03-10: > I recently redisovered the fact that asctime_r and ctime_r, like > asctime and ctime, are unsafe functions in the same sense that gets is > unsafe: they can overrun their output buffers and there's no simple > way for the user to detect in advance whether this wil