Re: Apache 1.2b6 Released! (fwd)

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

Chuck suggested this earlier on, but I think that I agree with
Marc that if the one we supply works, we should use it. I saw
no obvious problem with the timing test that Marc supplied and
it seems to work fine. (It even seemed to test slightly faster).

> First candidate for HAVE_SNPRINTF I suppose.
> 
> 	Brian
> 
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
> brian@hyperreal.com     http://www.apache.org     http://www.organic.com/jobs
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:21:58 -0800
> From: Fred Condo <fr...@lightside.net>
> To: apache@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache 1.2b6 Released!
> 
> At 3:21 AM -0800 1/27/97, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> >Most significantly, we have replaced a majority of the calls to "sprintf"
> >to "snprintf", which should help prevent the type of stack-scribbling hole
> >as was found recently in mod_cookies.  Because "snprintf" isn't in
> >libraries on all machines, we have provided our own snprintf utility - if
> >your platform has an "snprintf" routine which is considered stable and
> >robust, let us know at apache@apache.org and we will consider having it
> >use the native version on your platform. By default Apache will use its
> >own snprintf routine.
> 
> FreeBSD 2.X has the snprintf routine, as I'm sure many people have told you
> by now :)
> 
>