Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 13:37:21 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <rse@FreeBSD.org> Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64 Message-ID: <20060806133029.N36363@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060806082927.GA17297@engelschall.com> References: <20060805155548.EBE837302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20060805220746.U9314@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060805223658.X9314@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060806082927.GA17297@engelschall.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: RSE> > DM> It seems at least on amd64 size_t (strlen() result) is not int. RSE> > RSE> > Or, maybe, the following would be less ugly: RSE> > tdone_str = ctime(&tdone); RSE> > + tdone_str[(strlen(tdone_str) - 1)] = '\0'; Well, next thought: ctime(3) described as POSIX.1 function having fixed length of 26 chars. Is it safe and standards-compliant to save strlen(3) call and just use tdone_str[24] = '\0' ? Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060806133029.N36363>