On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:37:58PM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> I try to write to the current (well, ten-year-old) standards. The
> replacement in lib/sh/snprintf.c behaves as C99 specifies; you might try
> using it by #undefing HAVE_VSNPRINTF and HAVE_SNPRINTF in config.h.
Ah, wonderful. I wasted
Antonio Macchi schrieb:
> what's the rasonable limit in using this "compact" contruct, after which
> the for (( i=0; i<1000...; i++ )) became better?
Hardware/OS limits.
J.
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Greg Wooledge writes:
>
>> It doesn't mention a null pointer. The OpenBSD man page does explicitly
>> say the null pointer is allowed if size is zero. The GNU/Linux man page
>> says that SUSv2 and C99 disagree, but that the implementation follows
>> C99 (allowing the nul
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/printf.html#tag_20_94
(ouch!)
ok!
thanks!
Antonio Macchi wrote:
> I'm on error, I know... but, in your bash-ref guide you don't explain a
> lot printf
>
> and in man printf don't do it too...
>
> from man printf
> -
> NOTE: your shell may have its own version of printf, which usually
> supersedes the versio
Antonio Macchi wrote:
> I'm on error, I know... but, in your bash-ref guide you don't explain a
> lot printf
>
> and in man printf don't do it too...
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/printf.html#tag_20_94
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
I'm on error, I know... but, in your bash-ref guide you don't explain a
lot printf
and in man printf don't do it too...
from man printf
-
NOTE: your shell may have its own version of printf, which usually
supersedes the version described here. Please refer to your s
Antonio Macchi wrote:
> what's the rasonable limit in using this "compact" contruct, after which
> the for (( i=0; i<1000...; i++ )) became better?
You didn't even bother trying eh?
$ for i in {0..10}; do echo $i>/dev/null; done
bash: xmalloc: ../../../bash/lib/sh/stringvec.c:40: cann
what's the rasonable limit in using this "compact" contruct, after which
the for (( i=0; i<1000...; i++ )) became better?
Greg Wooledge writes:
> It doesn't mention a null pointer. The OpenBSD man page does explicitly
> say the null pointer is allowed if size is zero. The GNU/Linux man page
> says that SUSv2 and C99 disagree, but that the implementation follows
> C99 (allowing the null pointer when size is 0).
No
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:41:29PM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> If your version of vsnprintf doesn't behave like that, I claim it's a
> bug. The Posix and C standards explicitly allow the buffer to be NULL
> if the size argument is 0, and guarantee that no data will be written
> in this case.
Thank
11 matches
Mail list logo
