7.19¶4 suggests that "supporting large objects" would make it "necessary" for size_t to be a larger type.
This is very different from printf >INT_MAX, since there's no conceptual upper bound on printf output length.
-
-
If you limit width/precision then I think SIZE_MAX * SIZE_MAX should work as an upper bound.
-
The standard doesn't limit them, though. So printf("%999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999d",0)
-
My point here is that the standard is full of omissions of necessary explicit requirements or error conditions.
-
It's a willfully buggy/incomplete standard by a committee who thinks "you know what we meant!" suffices...
-
Interpreting that into something without gratuitous severe usability flaws is left to the reader. :-(
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
printf having unrepresentable lengths that are errors is inevitable, but if strlen has them it's purely bad impl
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.