Jeff Morriss wrote:
Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
- I had the same issue with another project, and we created macro:
#define __(x) ((x) ? (x) : "(null)")
and use it when passing possible-null-strings. It's still PITA but
IMHO it looks a little better than doing it by hand.
I don't mind doing i
On May 16, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> But it is encouraging as they indicate that Solaris is the only "significant"
> printf that is "good enough" except for this NULL pointer stuff. Well,
> except for those poor sods running "insignificant" printfs.
To be fair, what Owen said wa
Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:18:40PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Every once in a while, I do some fuzz testing on a Solaris/SPARC system.
When I first did it I was primarily worried about getting bus errors
(due to casts increasing alignment requirements), but usually what
Chris Maynard wrote:
Jeff Morriss writes:
Is there a better way? Or better yet, a proper solution?
Not claiming this is better or proper, just another alternative:
epan/strutil.c:
#include
size_t ws_strlen(const char *s)
{
if (s == NULL)
return 0;
return strlen(s);
}
Bu
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:18:40PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Every once in a while, I do some fuzz testing on a Solaris/SPARC system.
> When I first did it I was primarily worried about getting bus errors
> (due to casts increasing alignment requirements), but usually what I
> find is anoth
On 5/16/11 1:47 PM, Chris Maynard wrote:
> Jeff Morriss writes:
>
>> Is there a better way? Or better yet, a proper solution?
>
> Not claiming this is better or proper, just another alternative:
>
> epan/strutil.c:
>
> #include
> size_t ws_strlen(const char *s)
> {
> if (s == NULL)
>
Jeff Morriss writes:
> Is there a better way? Or better yet, a proper solution?
Not claiming this is better or proper, just another alternative:
epan/strutil.c:
#include
size_t ws_strlen(const char *s)
{
if (s == NULL)
return 0;
return strlen(s);
}
Hi folks,
Every once in a while, I do some fuzz testing on a Solaris/SPARC system.
When I first did it I was primarily worried about getting bus errors
(due to casts increasing alignment requirements), but usually what I
find is another case of what I fixed in r37181. (Fortunately, I have
n
