Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!svin02!wsinis03!debra
From: debra@wsinis03.info.win.tue.nl (Paul De Bra)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: New 'n' Improved comp.lang.c FAQ List
Message-ID: <1858@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>
Date: 3 Apr 91 10:46:03 GMT
References: <1991Apr1.203024.19679@unlv.edu> <31946@shamash.cdc.com> <3739@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@svin02.info.win.tue.nl
Reply-To: debra@info.win.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 22

In article <3739@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> fguille@France.Sun.COM writes:
>bls@u02.svl.cdc.com (Brian Scearce) writes:
>            char *itoa(int i)
>              {
>                static char retbuf[5];         /* biggest int: 32768 */
>                sprintf(retbuf, "%d", i);
>                return retbuf;
>              }
>Should'nt the *really really correct* version allocate an extra character
>in the retbuf array for the end of string delimiter \0 ???

Actually, this version of itoa is wrong for 2 reasons:
- retbuf should have size 7, to account for negative ints as well as the
  terminating null character.
- this version of itoa will not work as expected in a call like:
  printf("%s %s\n",itoa(2),itoa(3));
  the only way to do it right is to allocate memory for the buffer on each
  call. but then, freeing that memory becomes a problem as it cannot be done
  inside itoa...

Paul.
(debra@win.tue.nl)