[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: check for C99-compliant snprintf - call for volunteers
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: check for C99-compliant snprintf - call for volunteers |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:53:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) |
Bruce Korb <address@hidden> writes:
> Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Paul Eggert wrote on 2007-02-16:
>>> It's a bit of a pain that this will reject all cross-compiled snprintfs.
>>> Is there some way you can test for this at compile-time?
>>
>> Cross-compiles can be handled at configure time, by using predetermined
>> test results (and assuming the worst in cases where we the system is not
>> in our list).
>>
>> Here's the current matrix:
>
> I know this may be seen as flame bait, but is it not just a
> bit easier to simply presume that the gnulib library is always
> going to be at least as standards compliant as the native
> implementation? In other words, why worry? Maybe right now
> I don't use the 'a' directive, is it worth the bother to go
> back and fix up configure scripts if the 'a' directive creeps
> into my sources? Keep It Simple Silly to my lazy, don't-want-to-
> bother-so-much ideals says "Just always use what you know works."
> Let's revisit this in 5 or 10 years and see if one can't rely
> on native stuff by then. :)
printf is by far the largest gnulib I use in some projects, and on
some embedded platforms, it is a pain. It is not even clear that I
need the gnulib replacement, but the M4 tests that enable it aren't
clever enough to know that it isn't needed. Cross-compiling is one
problem, the tests are often too pessimistic. Perhaps there could be
a way to hard code that the target printf has certain characteristics.
/Simon
Re: check for C99-compliant snprintf - call for volunteers, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/03/05
Re: check for C99-compliant snprintf - call for volunteers, Albert Chin, 2007/03/07