Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Manlio Perillo
Тема
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm
Дата
Msg-id
52663A64.2030600@gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Manlio Perillo <manlio.perillo@gmail.com>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
On 22/10/2013 09:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I returned from vacation only to find that the buildfarm has a bad case
> of acne.  All the Windows members are red or pink, and have been for
> awhile.  Sigh.
>
> After some research I believe that I understand the reason for the CHECK
> failures, at least:
>
> 1. src/port/asprintf.c exhibits a truly touching faith that vsnprintf will
> report exactly the number of bytes that would have been required, even if
> the buffer is not that large.  While this is what is specified in recent
> versions of the POSIX standard, older platforms have much sketchier
> behavior.
>

Just to be pedantic, this is required by C99.
> [...]


Regards  Manlio Perillo


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Haribabu kommi
Дата:
От: Albe Laurenz
Дата:
FAQ