[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b
|
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
|
Subject: |
Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b |
|
Date: |
02 May 2001 19:26:05 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) Emacs/21.0.103 |
Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
|> If the definition of printf above (extracted from glibc's stdio.h)
|> is valid, then I suppose this is a problem with gcc.
Both glibc and gcc are perfectly correct. You cannot have preprocessing
directives inside the arguments of a macro call, and the standard allows
the library to define macro version of any function.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab "And now for something
SuSE Labs completely different."
address@hidden
SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
- FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Jim Meyering, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Ben Collins, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Neil Booth, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Zack Weinberg, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/02