Andreas Kirschbaum wrote: > But I could not find out how to change the state of the sourceforge > tracker items. Should I just add a comment to that tracker item (and > wait for someone else to change the state) or did I miss anything? I've updated your permissions so I think you should be able to update the bug and patch statuses. > > > Basically, the problem was a statement like > > sprintf(buf, "...%s...", buf) > > That is, the destination string was part of the source string. Doing a > grep for all s[n]printf calls in the code revealed some more statements > like > > sprintf(buf, "%s...", buf) > > in readable.c. Should I change these statements as well? (I ask this > because these statements may work in practice, but the Ansi-C standard > says "If copying takes place between objects that overlap, the behavior > is undefined.") They should get changed. Ideally, where possible, they should all get changed to snprintf as well (the cases where this is not applicable is when a string is passed in of unknown size). However, even then, using snprintf and passing in BIG_BUF or the like might still be better than nothing. _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel