On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:54:16 +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:

> I'd rather you changed those into ret < 0 to match what the CAVEAT in
> the snprintf(3) manual says - it used to say ret == -1 but that was
> changed a few years back because standards decided to allow negative
> returns instead of only -1.

Agreed.  Another option is to store the return value in an unsigned
int or size_t so you only need to do the >= check.  But that is
probably more confusing and would lead to someone later on trying
to "fix" it.

 - todd