On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:53:10PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Huh? So, if vsnprintf() exists, you assume it's C99-compliant? glib > > has a check for this, AC_FUNC_VSNPRINTF_C99, because that's not the > > case on some systems. And, we found that Solaris and AIX 5.1 do not > > have a C99-compliant vsnprintf(). The attached program returns -1 on > > Solaris 6/SPARC thru Solaris 9/SPARC which has vsnprintf(), for > > example. > > It's not hard to check at runtime whether [v]snprintf is > C99-compliant, as your example shows. A previous version of my > proposed change did just that. Paul Eggert requested that I try > to make it a compile- or link-time check, because the alternative > was to assume that [v]snprintf needed to be replaced if we were > cross-compiling. I wasn't aware that these other systems have > non-compliant [v]snprintf, so I didn't check for them. > > Is it better to try to enumerate non-compliant systems at > compile/link time, or to assume non-compliance when > cross-compiling? Neither choice is ideal. What's more likely to > be accepted into gnulib?
How about assuming compliance when cross-compliance but enumerate, when cross-compiling, the systems that fail? When not cross-compiling, let's perform the compile-time check. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
