Commit report for master branch
B.Candler at pobox.com
Wed Oct 17 11:41:00 CEST 2012
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:26:35AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
> >I guess if there's any doubt,
> > "%lu", (long)sizeof(...)
> >should be pretty safe.
> Yuck. Cast of unsigned to signed :oP
Sorry, I meant "%lu", (unsigned long)sizeof(...)
If "%zu", sizeof(...) is correct I'm happy with that too.
> TBH it's a fairly theoretical argument; sizeof is used on objects
> whose size tends to be in the range 1-100k and specified at compile
> time. The odds of sizeof ever returning >2**31 are very, very
> remote, at least with current system architectures.
It's more about pushing the right size onto the stack for va_arg. If you
push an 8-byte value when printf consumes 4-bytes, or vice versa, then it
will screw up the following arguments.
More information about the Freeradius-Devel