Re: More thinking securely...

[Dave Leimbach <leimySPAM2k@xxxxxxx>]

Dave Leimbach <leimySPAM2k@xxxxxxx> writes:

> <jarkko.hietaniemi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > >     'safe' situations where old functions are used (like
> > >     sprintf(buf, "%d", v)), simply because then the audited 
> > 
> > Safe?
> > 
> > 	char buf[8];
> > 	sprintf(buf, "%d", v);
> 
> You need to know how many decimal digits are in an "int" to feel good
> about that code.  Then you have to leave room for the '\0';
> 
> C++ stringstream anyone? :)  [Oooh... I said a cuss word in a Unix/BSD 
> commmunity - "C++".]
> 
> Type safety has some advantages.... and I don't care how the hell clever you
> are with stdint.h from C99.  You still have to know what the printf format
> strings are going to do.
> 
> "%hhd" = char sized decimal
> "%hd"  = short sized decimal
> "%d"   = int sized decimal
> "%ld"  = long sized decimal
> "%lld" = long long sized decimal.
> 
> There is no format string I am aware of that can do %64d for a 64bit
> integer.  Of course that doesn't mean they don't exist... I am just not
> aware of them :)

Bill Fenner corrected me :).  inttypes.h has exactly this information. :)

Dave