On 30 Dec 2000 at 12:57 (-0500), Tom Lane wrote:
| Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > formatting '-1040' with '%u'
| > snprintf = 18446744073709550576
| > sprintf = 4294966256
|
| > oidout() is where the offending call originates, FWIW.
| > snprintf(result, 12, "%u", o);
|
| Hm.
> Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> formatting '-1040' with '%u'
>> snprintf = 18446744073709550576
>> sprintf = 4294966256
>> oidout() is where the offending call originates, FWIW.
>> snprintf(result, 12, "%u", o);
> Hm. This is clearly a bug in snprintf.
OK, I was able to duplicat
Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> formatting '-1040' with '%u'
> snprintf = 18446744073709550576
> sprintf = 4294966256
> oidout() is where the offending call originates, FWIW.
> snprintf(result, 12, "%u", o);
Hm. This is clearly a bug in snprintf. Did I understand you correctl
Hi,
It turns out the problem causing the oid failures is with our
snprintf. specifically we are formatting "%u" incorrectly:
using a enhanced-for-testing version of our snprintf I get.
formatting '-1040' with '%lu'
snprintf = 18446744073709550576
sprintf = 18446744073709550576
formatti
