Hello Uz, * On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:14:32PM +0100 Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > sprintf(buffer, "M-W%c%c%c", 0x01, 0x02, 0x03); [...] > The above works, but it's quite some overhead, because the string is > assembled at runtime, and sprintf is not exactly a lightweight > function. Yes, I know. In fact, sprintf() has many other problems, too. I have not checked, but cc65 does not happen to have an snprintf() function? (I'm curious to see the first exploit for a 6502 computer...) > > Is this behaviour guaranteed from the C standard? > > Which behaviour do you mean? If you mean character set translation, then the > answer is that the standard allows it (see ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), "5.2.1 > Character sets"). Well, my question was: Does the standard guarantee that *only* strings and character literals are converted? I fear some compilers trying to convert the contents of a char variable (for example, if I use the above sprintf(), my 0x01 would be translated!) Anyway, I see, we're leaving the grounds of cc65 here. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Dec 1 12:30:04 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2004-12-01 12:30:13 CET