> > Looks like the time machine is at work again: the version we use *is* > > a free snprintf implementation. > Are we looking at the same mysnprintf? ... That doesn't look safe to me Definitely, on both accounts. I was not claiming that it was safe; I was only claiming it was free, and that it was snprintf implementation. To re-iterate my points: - if you think it is bad enough to deserve attention, propose a specific replacement; that will then need careful inspection - Given that there are three callers of this snprintf, and Given that two of them are guaranteed to never overrun the buffer, and Given that the third one will do so only under obscure circumstances, and Given that Python will terminate under these circumstances, rather than silently operating with wrong data, I conclude that this doesn't deserve attention. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4