Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
