Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +void strbuf_vaddf(struct strbuf *sb, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
> {
> int len;
>
> if (!strbuf_avail(sb))
> strbuf_grow(sb, 64);
> len = vsnprintf(sb->buf + sb->len, sb->alloc - sb->len, fmt, ap);
> if (len < 0)
> die("your vsnprintf is broken");
> if (len > strbuf_avail(sb)) {
> strbuf_grow(sb, len);
> len = vsnprintf(sb->buf + sb->len, sb->alloc - sb->len, fmt, ap);
> if (len > strbuf_avail(sb)) {
> die("this should not happen, your snprintf is broken");
> }
Hmm, I would have expected to see va_copy() somewhere in the patch text.
Is it safe to reuse ap like this in two separate invocations of
vsnprintf()?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html