[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
portability of 'printf' command
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
portability of 'printf' command |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:06:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Is the 'printf' command portable enough to be used in configure files
and autoconf macros?
The GNU Coding Standards [1] don't mention it as a portable utility. Indeed,
when you use bash version 1 (which does not have 'printf' built-in) on a
platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf program, you would be hosed.
But which platforms are this? The Autoconf manual [2] does not mention a lack
of 'printf' anywhere.
Is someone aware of a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf or
/bin/printf program?
Bruno
[1] http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html
[2]
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Limitations-of-Builtins.html
- [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Ben Pfaff, 2010/02/20
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Bruno Haible, 2010/02/20
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Ben Pfaff, 2010/02/20
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Eric Blake, 2010/02/20
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Bruno Haible, 2010/02/20
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Ben Pfaff, 2010/02/21
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Bruno Haible, 2010/02/21
- portability of 'printf' command,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/02/21
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Thomas Dickey, 2010/02/22
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/02/21
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Thomas Dickey, 2010/02/22
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Ben Pfaff, 2010/02/21
- Re: [patch] fix "broken pipe" message from lseek test, Eric Blake, 2010/02/22