Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm
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: