bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#58966: [Trunk] Xcode 14.1+ (and macOS 13.0+) deprecate sprintf()


From: Paul Eggert
Subject: bug#58966: [Trunk] Xcode 14.1+ (and macOS 13.0+) deprecate sprintf()
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 13:00:25 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3

On 2022-11-05 09:26, Stefan Kangas wrote:
snprintf is part of the C99 standard, so I think we can always rely on
it being there.  Switching sounds like a good idea.

sprintf is also part of the C99 (and C17 and C23) standards, so "it's in the standard" does not mean we need to switch away from sprintf.

While we're on the topic: sprintf and snprintf both have serious design flaws, in that they cannot generate output longer than INT_MAX bytes, and this contradicts the GNU design philosophy to avoid arbitrary limits. Instead, code that needs low level formatting should use Emacs's own esprintf family of functions, which don't have the INT_MAX limit. (Often it's better for code to use Fformat etc. and generate a Lisp string, which doesn't have that limit either.)

Admittedly we haven't always been good about this, as sprintf/snprintf are standard and are tempting to use. It might be a good idea, though, for someone to go through the code and see if there are any INT_MAX-related bugs lurking in Emacs now due to its use of sprintf and/or snprintf, and replace these calls with something better.


On 2022-11-04 20:12, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We could switch to snprintf, and define snprintf to call sprintf
> in systems where snprintf isn't available.

That wouldn't that easy to do, and would make code more awkward and slow it down a bit. The current 3-line change to configure.ac is much simpler. It's pretty implausible that Apple will make sprintf go away entirely - and if Apple is foolish enough to do so, there are simple workarounds for that that don't involve messing with our legacy code.

It is possible to verify
that sprintf did not overwrite the buffer.

Sorry, I don't know what this comment is trying to say.

In my experience, with a debugging runtime sprintf is better than snprintf, as sprintf reliably reports bugs whereas snprintf silently truncates and continues with hard-to-debug behavior occuring later. Of course with traditional non-debugging runtimes one loses with sprintf, but in practice it's a tradeoff often worth making.







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]