Re: sscanf (pc,"%lu",&uidvalidity) (Re: [2005-03-22] CVS repository changes)
On Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 18:45, Tamotsu Takahashi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 01:13:19AM -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 March 2005 at 14:04, Tamotsu Takahashi wrote:
> > > BTW, What about checking the return value of sscanf?
> > > (as Yonetani-san said.)
> > >
> > > if (sscanf (pc, "%lu", &(idata->uid_validity)) != 1)
> > > goto fail;
> >
> > probably a good idea in theory, but next thing you know we're
> > checking the return value of malloc calls.
>
> Aha, Okay. I don't object to you the IMAP code author. :)
> It must be safe because you say so. Thanks for the information.
> I just thought that a response from a server is less reliable
> than a return value of a malloc (and we can do something after
> sscanf failed, but we can do (almost) nothing after malloc
> failed).
sorry, that was a little late night joke. sscanf should be checked,
I'm just not looking forward to going through all the code.