Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:17:20 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/ln & WARNS=5 Message-ID: <xzp1ya59r5r.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20020715111436.GD50130@hades.hell.gr> References: <xzpele59w21.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020715202126.S40071-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020715111436.GD50130@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> writes: > My intuition was that size_t being unsigned won't require truncation > of the (int) return value... But if one wanted to explicitly make > both a check for (-1) and the return value being less than the size of > the buffer would the following be more proper? Looks good to me, apart from the extra parentheses around the argument to sizeof. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp1ya59r5r.fsf>