Re: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000177]: mismatch between example descriptionand code

[shwaresyst@xxxxxxx]

Yes, but then the malloc() call would most likely fail and the function 
would error exit anyways. I believe that most of those values in 
limits.h are there so applications can be optimized to deal with 
definite cases, not indefinite ones, so using impractical values would 
in effect defeat their intended purpose.

Can switch it to, so the function exits gracefully:

 /* get implementation instance's max expectable line length */
line_max = sysconf(_SC_LINE_MAX);
 /* account as practical for fgets() appending a NULL char */
if (line_max = LONG_MAX) return EOVERFLOW;
line_max ++;

but I was more trying to show the NULL as being accounted for so 
glossed that test over to keep the example brief.

Cheers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: wollman+austin-group@xxxxxx
To: shwaresyst@xxxxxx
Cc: gwc@xxxxxx; austin-group-l@xxxxxx
Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2009 11:39 am
Subject: Re: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000177]: mismatch between example 
description and code










<<On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:24:15 -0500, shwaresyst@xxxxxx said:

>   /* get implementation instance's max expectable line length and
> account for fgets() appending a NULL char */
>     line_max = sysconf(_SC_LINE_MAX) + 1;
If the implementation defines {LINE_MAX} to be {LONG_MAX}, this will
overflow.  (I could see some implementors wanting to do that, in lieu
of saying "unlimited".)

-GAWollman