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? -- On Perl: "It's as if H.P. Lovecraft, returned from the dead and speaking by seance to Larry Wall, designed a language both elegant and terrifying for his Elder Things to write programs in, and forgot that the Shoggoths didn't turn out quite so well in the long run." --Matt Olson
