25 Apr
2008
25 Apr
'08
10:32 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 08:13:45PM +0200, Justus Winter wrote:
By the way, if you still think there's something wrong with them, please adjust them accordingly (like checking the return value of snprintf, reducing the size of buf (a 64 byte long char buffer should be enough for the hexadecimal representation of 244 bit wide pointers plus '0x' and the final 0, right? :) ).
I am just a bystander myself :-) "%p" really is enough (includes 0x). snprintf because it doesn't match static scans for potentially unsafe functions. Joerg