[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <419e95bb3a69fa0990e56996e198355f@ispras.ru>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:39:07 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in gets function?
On 2019-02-12 19:30, Rich Felker wrote:
> Here's an alternate proposal via direct implementation:
>
> char *gets(char *s)
> {
> size_t i=0;
> int c;
> FLOCK(stdin);
> while ((c=getc_unlocked(stdin)) != EOF && c != '\n') s[i++] = c;
> s[i] = 0;
> if (c != '\n' && !feof(stdin)) s = 0;
> FUNLOCK(stdin);
> return s;
> }
>
> Does this look ok? Of course it's slow compared to a fgets-like
> operation on the buffer, but gets is not a usable interface and I
> don't see any reason to care whether it's fast.
>
gets() must also return NULL if EOF is reached and no bytes were read.
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
