Re: [PATCH] correct handling of non-constant width and precision (pr 78521)

[Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>]

On 11/28/2016 05:42 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > Finally, the patch also tightens up the constraint on the upper bound
> > of bounded functions like snprintf to be INT_MAX.  The functions cannot
> > produce output in excess of INT_MAX + 1 bytes and some implementations
> > (e.g., Solaris) fail with EINVAL when the bound is INT_MAX or more.
> > This is the subject of PR 78520.
>
> Note that failing with large bounds is questionable (there is an apparent
> conflict between ISO C, where passing a large bound seems valid, and
> POSIX, where large bounds require errors; see
> <http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=761>; I'm not sure if any liaison
> issue for this ever got passed to WG14).

Thanks!  That's useful background.  Let me check with Nick to see
is he (as the POSIX/WG14 liaison) plans to submit it.  I can also
write it up for the next WG14 meeting if we or the Austin Group
feel like WG14 should clarify or change things.

Martin