| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Er ... does port/snprintf.c actually work? |
| Date: | 2005-12-04 19:17:28 |
| Message-ID: | 9381.1133723848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I started to do some simple testing of snprintf.c after doing the
cleanup work I had in mind, and soon found that neither my version
nor the original actually do parameter reordering correctly:
$ ./testf 'abc%2$sfoo%1$s' DEF GHI
sys:
abcGHIfooDEF <--- looks right to me
ours:
abcDEFfooGHI <--- wrong
done
I haven't dug into this too closely yet (offhand I think the problem
is that the loop at line 541ff is searching fmtpar[] and then using
fmtparptr[]) but was wondering why it hadn't been noticed before.
Which of our platforms actually use port/snprintf.c, and hasn't anyone
tried any of the internationalized message databases on one?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2005-12-04 20:15:37 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-04 18:58:07 | Re: pg_restore [archiver] file offset in dump file is too |