From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7613258DF for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:19:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2014 15:19:51 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,533,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="562130499" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2014 15:19:46 -0700 Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.99) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:18:41 +0100 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.31]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:18:41 +0100 From: "Richardson, Bruce" To: Stephen Hemminger , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Why rte_snprintf at all? Thread-Index: AQHPjwbz0aSJjYvEn0epoNdK+kbjGJt/Q+EQ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:18:40 +0000 Message-ID: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B02CEE0C0E@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20140623101603.54a5d887@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: <20140623101603.54a5d887@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why rte_snprintf at all? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:19:34 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:16 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why rte_snprintf at all? >=20 > Why does rte_snprintf exist? It seems like a misunderstanding or broken > implementation of snprintf in some other C library. For standard Glibc, > I get same result from rte_snprintf and snprintf for all inputs including > boundary cases It can indeed probably be deprecated in next release. Any objections? /Bruce