On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 28/06/10 06:31, Andres P wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
So, any ideas on the best way to approach this?
Counting 13 instances of asprintf, so voting "no" to both suggestions so far.
What does the number of asprintf's have to do with this?
I hope you don't suggest changing each to if(!asprintf(...))
Anyway, voting no does not count if you do not provide a better solution. The return value of asprintf needs to be checked when compiling with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 which I want to use with --enable-debug. So something has to be done...
You already have a pm_vasprintf wrapper, so I don't see why you couldn't make a asprintf wrapper here. Both of these solutions, the original proposition and writing a wrapper, are ultimately workarounds since the parent functions need to be changed from void so that nobody is reduced to a little shy message log instead of an exit. Why would you change this just to compile with fortify_source when it's showing inherent problems that are more important? btw, http://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf/ Andres P