Hi Sven & Sebastian, On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Sebastian Schuberth wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Sven Strickroth <sven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ACK on the patch. > > diff --git a/compat/snprintf.c b/compat/snprintf.c > > index 42ea1ac..0b11688 100644 > > --- a/compat/snprintf.c > > +++ b/compat/snprintf.c > > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ > > * always have room for a trailing NUL byte. > > */ > > #ifndef SNPRINTF_SIZE_CORR > > -#if defined(WIN32) && (!defined(__GNUC__) || __GNUC__ < 4) > > +#if defined(WIN32) && (!defined(__GNUC__) || __GNUC__ < 4) && (!defined(_MSC_VER) || _MSC_VER < 1900) > > #define SNPRINTF_SIZE_CORR 1 > > #else > > #define SNPRINTF_SIZE_CORR 0 > > I wonder if the logic is (and was) sensible here. We assume that every > non-__GNUC__ and non-_MSC_VER compiler on Windows requires the > correction. Wouldn't it make sense to not assume requiring the > correction unless we know the compiler has this bug? That is, > shouldn't this better say > > #if defined(WIN32) && (defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ < 4) || > (defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER < 1900)) > #define SNPRINTF_SIZE_CORR 1 > #else > #define SNPRINTF_SIZE_CORR 0 Since the standard on Windows always was MS Visual C, it should be assumed that compilers *other* than GCC followed Visual C's lead. Of course, evidence speaks louder than assumptions. Therefore I would prefer to keep the current version, at least until we encounter a case where it is incorrect. Thanks, Johannes -- 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