David,
> I know it is probably not much help, but I don't see this behavior.
> I get the above command with no "unresolved" messages. Here is my system:
>
> % cc -V
> cc (cc)
> Digital UNIX Compiler Driver 3.11
> Compaq C V6.1-120 on Digital UNIX V4.0G (Rev. 1530)
You have a newer compiler and a newer OS release than we do.
(cf. DEC C V5.9-011 on Digital UNIX V4.0 (Rev. 1229))
> % uname -a
> OSF1 peano.scripps.edu V4.0 1530 alpha
"sizer -v" tells you the exact version, but the cc -V already indicated
it's 4.0G in your case, 4.0F here.
>> "-ldb"
> Sounds reasonable to me; why not try it??
I know it compiles if I do that. It probably even works most of the
time, but I imagined there was a specific point to your using snprintf
instead of sprintf in the first place, and consequently, that using a
wrapped sprintf (which does not check arguments the way snprintf should)
in lieu of a proper snprintf could expose the program to just the kind
of buffer overflow problems you must have wanted to avoid by using
snprintf in the first place. Am I being unnecessarily paranoid?
--
Atro Tossavainen (Mr.) / The Institute of Biotechnology at
Systems Analyst, Techno-Amish & / the University of Helsinki, Finland,
+358-9-19158939 UNIX Dinosaur / employs me, but my opinions are my own.
< URL : http : / / www . helsinki . fi / %7E atossava / > NO FILE ATTACHMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to amber.scripps.edu
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to majordomo.scripps.edu
Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 07:53:00 PDT
