On 23 Aug 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:

> 
> /* This output manipulator gives the option to use Old style format
>    specifications in ostreams. Note that this is done at the expense
>    of typesafety, so if possible this manipulator should be avoided.
>    When is it allowed to use this manipulator? I wrote it to be used
>    i18n strings and gettext, and it should only(?) be used in that
>    context.
> 
>    Ad. the implementation. I have only tested this on egcs-2.91.66 with
>    glibc 2.1.2. So further testing is needed. The loop in fmt(...) will
>    usually spin one or two times, but might spin more times with older
>    glibc libraries, since the returned -1 when size is too small. Newer
>    glibc returns the needed size.
>    One problem can be that vsnprintf is not implemented on all archs,
>    but AFAIK it is part of the new ANSI C standard.
>    
>    Lgb
> */
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>         Lgb
> 

Tested OK on two systems: a SUN Enterprise, SunOS 8 using g++ 2.8.1
and on an intel machine,  RH 6.2 using egcs 2.91.66

With regard to the libc version, if calling "gnu_get_libc_version()" is
the right answer, then the RH has glibc 2.1.3.

As for the Solaris, ldd shows the /usr/lib/libc.so.1 present on the
machine and not any GNU library. This library isn't GNU, since it doesn't
have the gnu_get_libc_version() function (nm shows this). A manual search
uncovered a script called glib-config, which is supposed to give the
version of glib (is this the same as glibc?), and is hard-coded to echo
1.1.3.

Sorry for the confusion and the delay,
Lior.
Script started on Tue Sep 12 16:01:25 2000
<1|0>lior@phoenix:~/tmp/testfmt> g++ -Wall -W -o testfmt testfmt.C fmt.C
<2|0>lior@phoenix:~/tmp/testfmt> ./testfmt
d = 10
d = 10
<3|0>lior@phoenix:~/tmp/testfmt> exit

script done on Tue Sep 12 16:01:40 2000
Script started on Tue Sep 12 16:05:38 2000
<1|0>lior@fine104:~/tmp/testfmt> g++ -Wall -W -o testfmt testfmt.C fmt.C
<2|0>lior@fine104:~/tmp/testfmt> testfmt
d = 10
d = 10
<3|0>lior@fine104:~/tmp/testfmt> exit

Script done on Tue Sep 12 16:05:46 2000

Reply via email to