* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-06-27 18:37 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-07 10:06 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (11 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-06-27 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
Andreas Stenius <ecos@astekk.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ecos@astekk.se
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Stenius <ecos@astekk.se> 2012-06-27 19:37:09 BST ---
I have verified the issue, and that the attached patch solves it.
However, I have not run the affected ecos tests in this patch (Although I have
run the test suite for our project).
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
2012-06-27 18:37 ` [Bug 1001490] " bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-07 10:06 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-07 16:44 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (10 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-07 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> 2012-08-07 11:05:39 BST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I have verified the issue, and that the attached patch solves it.
> However, I have not run the affected ecos tests in this patch (Although I have
> run the test suite for our project).
Note: the test case as it was attached fails in "snprintf double test #2",
which has to be changed like the other test cases.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
2012-06-27 18:37 ` [Bug 1001490] " bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-07 10:06 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-07 16:44 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-08 7:31 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (9 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-07 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> 2012-08-07 17:44:01 BST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > I have verified the issue, and that the attached patch solves it.
> > However, I have not run the affected ecos tests in this patch
> > (Although I have run the test suite for our project).
>
> Note: the test case as it was attached fails in "snprintf double test
> #2", which has to be changed like the other test cases.
Thank you for testing. But I do not see any "snprintf double test #2" in
CVS sources
% grep -nr 'printf\W\+double' packages/language/c/
packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/tests/sprintf2.c:169:
"snprintf double test #1");
packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/tests/sprintf2.c:172:
"snprintf double test #1 return code");
Could you clarify, please, what the test does not pass?
Sergei
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-07 16:44 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-08 7:31 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-08 16:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (8 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-08 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> 2012-08-08 08:30:42 BST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
oops, sorry... Now I see, actually I applied the my own patch from
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001628
a while ago, it contained a new test case...
// Check 7
ret = snprintf(y, 20, "bit of that: %.4g double", 1.0012);
my_strcpy(z, "bit of that: 1.001 ");
CYG_TEST_PASS_FAIL(my_strcmp(y,z) == 0,
"snprintf double test #2");
CYG_TEST_PASS_FAIL(ret == my_strlen(z),
"snprintf double test #2 return code");
when that did fail after applying your patch, I was surprised.
Well, there is more trouble with sprintf....
There is another bug #20804, about the %e format, that is also still
not fixed.
When I tried to understand, why that happens, I found a buffer overflow
in the statement: printf("%.15f", DBL_MAX);
There is a buffer in vfnprintf() which is 2 characters too small.
Maybe there should be a patch for all of the known issues.
What do you think?
Bernd.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-08 7:31 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-08 16:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-09 7:50 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (7 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-08 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> 2012-08-08 17:58:35 BST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> oops, sorry... Now I see, actually I applied the my own patch from
> http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001628
[snip]
Thanks. Clear.
> Well, there is more trouble with sprintf....
>
> There is another bug #20804, about the %e format, that is also still
> not fixed.
>
> When I tried to understand, why that happens, I found a buffer
> overflow in the statement: printf("%.15f", DBL_MAX);
>
> There is a buffer in vfnprintf() which is 2 characters too small.
There is another case. Today I investigated in bug #20804. The reason
is
686 /* trailing f.p. zeroes */
687 PAD(fpprec, zeroes);
688 ret += fpprec;
It's okay for ("%.18f\n", 3.14e-11)
0.000000000031400000
But the padding/zeroing will be wrong for %e, %E, when requested prec >
MAXPREC. Well, I ever made a fix :-) But, then I Googled and found this
report
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2001-05/msg00065.html
Well, it looks like my fix (Suzuki did talk about the same point which I
found in GDB), but my workaround was
if (prec > MAXFRACT) {
if ((ch == 'f' && ch == 'F') || (flags&ALT)) {
fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT;
prec = MAXFRACT;
}
} else if (prec == -1)
I was suprised how many projects use the same "printf" sources! But I've
seen no fixes in this place there. I need more time to look around.
> Maybe there should be a patch for all of the known issues. What do
> you think?
No matter. I think we have to rid all the issues. Thank you for your
reports.
Sergei
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-08 16:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-09 7:50 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-09 8:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (6 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-09 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> 2012-08-09 08:49:57 BST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's okay for ("%.18f\n", 3.14e-11)
> 0.000000000031400000
but not quite OK for these:
("%.18f\n", 3.1415926E-11)
eCos: "0.000000000031400000"
glib: "0.000000000031415926"
("%.18f\n", DBL_MAX*2)
eCos: "inf000"
glib: "inf"
> But the padding/zeroing will be wrong for %e, %E, when requested prec >
> MAXPREC.
but also for %g: this does work like %e, when the value is >=10^prec or <=10^-4
> Well, it looks like my fix (Suzuki did talk about the same point which I
> found in GDB), but my workaround was
> if (prec > MAXFRACT) {
> if ((ch == 'f' && ch == 'F') || (flags&ALT)) {
> fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT;
> prec = MAXFRACT;
> }
> } else if (prec == -1)
ok, but with this patch there will be a crash in printf("%.999e", x)
limiting prec MAXFRACT helps to avoid the buffer overrun in "cvt"
however with DBL_MAX the buffer size BUF 2 characters too small as I said.
I tried to solve it this way:
diff -Nur
ecos-cvs-120723/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
ecos/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
---
ecos-cvs-120723/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
2009-08-20 18:09:18.000000000 +0200
+++ ecos/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
2012-08-07 10:16:48.809576300 +0200
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@
# define MAXFRACT DBL_DIG
# define MAXEXP DBL_MAX_10_EXP
-# define BUF (MAXEXP+MAXFRACT+1) /* + decimal point */
+# define BUF (MAXEXP+MAXFRACT+3) /* + decimal point + rounding
*/
# define DEFPREC 6
static int
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
* zeroes later, so buffer size stays rational.
*/
if (prec > MAXFRACT) {
- if ((ch != 'g' && ch != 'G') || (flags&ALT))
+ if (ch == 'f' || ch == 'F')
fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT;
prec = MAXFRACT;
} else if (prec == -1)
This way there are no buffer overruns, and the added zeros are at least
never in the exponent. That would at least be a interim solution...
But I start to think that the "cvt" function will need a complete re-write
for strict conformance. And another point would be, that when you look at
the vfnprintf function in the assembler (ARM9, eCosCentric GNU tools 4.3.2-sw)
vfnprintf:stmdb r13!,{r4-r11,r14}
sub r13,r13,#0x30C
This function needs 816 bytes on the stack,
even if you do not use any %f formats!
Maybe reducing this number could be worth the effort.
Bernd.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-09 7:50 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-09 8:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-09 10:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (5 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-09 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #7 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> 2012-08-09 09:52:06 BST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > It's okay for ("%.18f\n", 3.14e-11)
> > 0.000000000031400000
>
> but not quite OK for these:
> ("%.18f\n", 3.1415926E-11)
> eCos: "0.000000000031400000"
> glib: "0.000000000031415926"
>
> ("%.18f\n", DBL_MAX*2)
> eCos: "inf000"
> glib: "inf"
>
>
> > But the padding/zeroing will be wrong for %e, %E, when requested prec >
> > MAXPREC.
>
> but also for %g: this does work like %e, when the value is >=10^prec or <=10^-4
>
> > Well, it looks like my fix (Suzuki did talk about the same point which I
> > found in GDB), but my workaround was
> > if (prec > MAXFRACT) {
> > if ((ch == 'f' && ch == 'F') || (flags&ALT)) {
> > fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT;
> > prec = MAXFRACT;
> > }
> > } else if (prec == -1)
>
> ok, but with this patch there will be a crash in printf("%.999e", x)
You're right. I had not tested it enough.
> limiting prec MAXFRACT helps to avoid the buffer overrun in "cvt"
> however with DBL_MAX the buffer size BUF 2 characters too small as I said.
>
> I tried to solve it this way:
>
> diff -Nur
> ecos-cvs-120723/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
> ecos/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
> ---
> ecos-cvs-120723/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
> 2009-08-20 18:09:18.000000000 +0200
> +++ ecos/packages/language/c/libc/stdio/current/src/output/vfnprintf.cxx
> 2012-08-07 10:16:48.809576300 +0200
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@
> # define MAXFRACT DBL_DIG
> # define MAXEXP DBL_MAX_10_EXP
>
> -# define BUF (MAXEXP+MAXFRACT+1) /* + decimal point */
> +# define BUF (MAXEXP+MAXFRACT+3) /* + decimal point + rounding
> */
> # define DEFPREC 6
>
> static int
> @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
> * zeroes later, so buffer size stays rational.
> */
> if (prec > MAXFRACT) {
> - if ((ch != 'g' && ch != 'G') || (flags&ALT))
> + if (ch == 'f' || ch == 'F')
> fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT;
> prec = MAXFRACT;
> } else if (prec == -1)
>
>
> This way there are no buffer overruns, and the added zeros are at least
> never in the exponent. That would at least be a interim solution...
Yes, as for me it's better than nothing. BTW, tonight I found a few points on
+3. E.g.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/newlib/2003/msg00610.html
http://svn.deepdarc.com/code/contiki/trunk/cpu/stm32w108/hal/micro/cortexm3/e_stdio/src/small_vfsscanf.c
> But I start to think that the "cvt" function will need a complete re-write
> for strict conformance. And another point would be, that when you look at
> the vfnprintf function in the assembler (ARM9, eCosCentric GNU tools 4.3.2-sw)
>
> vfnprintf:stmdb r13!,{r4-r11,r14}
> sub r13,r13,#0x30C
>
> This function needs 816 bytes on the stack,
> even if you do not use any %f formats!
>
> Maybe reducing this number could be worth the effort.
Even if CYGSEM_LIBC_STDIO_PRINTF_FLOATING_POINT is not defined?
Bernd, could you, please, prepare the patch on 0-padding with ChangeLog
entry? It seems to me the patch can be submitted for bug #20804
record.
Thank you,
Sergei
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-09 8:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-09 10:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-09 10:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (4 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-09 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> 2012-08-09 11:00:15 BST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Sergei,
> > This function needs 816 bytes on the stack,
> > even if you do not use any %f formats!
> >
> > Maybe reducing this number could be worth the effort.
> Even if CYGSEM_LIBC_STDIO_PRINTF_FLOATING_POINT is not defined?
hmm, thats funny.....
Without that define it is only 152 bytes.
That is 664 bytes difference.
BUT #define BUF changes only from 40 to 326.
Incredible, but I think I can reduce this easily:
cvt(), round(), and exponent() are all inlined.
However, char expbuf[MAXEXP] is 308 bytes!!!
but the largest possible exponent, "308", needs 3 only bytes.
Good you asked about that. Thanks!
This will reduce the stack use by 305 bytes.
> Bernd, could you, please, prepare the patch on 0-padding with ChangeLog
> entry? It seems to me the patch can be submitted for bug #20804
> record.
> Thank you,
> Sergei
Ok, I am going to fix that stack issue too, and if you do not mind,
I'd also like to fix the %g issue [Bug #1001628] and submit a cumulative
patch at [Bug #20804].
Thanks,
Bernd.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-09 10:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-09 10:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
2012-08-09 11:04 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (3 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-09 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> 2012-08-09 11:52:14 BST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Ok, I am going to fix that stack issue too, and if you do not mind,
> I'd also like to fix the %g issue [Bug #1001628] and submit a cumulative
> patch at [Bug #20804].
Feel free. It's okay for me.
Regarding Bug #1001628, do you resist on new check for `sprintf2.c?' Could you
reject it from the final patch? Why I ask, IMHO, your patches are small enough
to commit them without a copyright assignment, otherwise the copyright
assignment is required for any significant changes to the core eCos packages:
http://ecos.sourceware.org/assign.html
Thank you,
Sergei
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-09 10:52 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2012-08-09 11:04 ` bugzilla-daemon
2013-02-18 22:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (2 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2012-08-09 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> 2012-08-09 12:03:55 BST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Feel free. It's okay for me.
> Regarding Bug #1001628, do you resist on new check for `sprintf2.c?' Could you
> reject it from the final patch? Why I ask, IMHO, your patches are small enough
> to commit them without a copyright assignment, otherwise the copyright
> assignment is required for any significant changes to the core eCos packages:
> http://ecos.sourceware.org/assign.html
> Thank you,
> Sergei
Ok. Done.
Of course I did not touch the snprintf2.c test file, as it is obvious,
that your patch would break otherwise..
Thanks
Bernd.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-09 11:04 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2013-02-18 22:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
2013-02-19 10:40 ` bugzilla-daemon
2013-02-19 13:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2013-02-18 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email, use the link below.
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |john@dallaway.org.uk
--- Comment #11 from John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk> ---
Sergei, is there any reason why we should not check-in your patch for the
original null terminator issue reported in this bug?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-18 22:00 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2013-02-19 10:40 ` bugzilla-daemon
2013-02-19 13:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2013-02-19 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email, use the link below.
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Sergei, is there any reason why we should not check-in your patch for the
> original null terminator issue reported in this bug?
Ah! Thanks for reminder, I'll do it tonight.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug 1001490] C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings
2012-02-19 13:11 [Bug 1001490] New: C99 snprintf() does not include terminated null in truncated strings bugzilla-daemon
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-02-19 10:40 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2013-02-19 13:58 ` bugzilla-daemon
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2013-02-19 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-patches
Please do not reply to this email, use the link below.
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #13 from Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> ---
Checked-in.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread