On Sat Apr 05 21:33:49 2008, infinoid wrote: > On Fri Mar 21 09:03:08 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > there is a definition on my system for PARROT_HAS_SNPRINTF, but not a > > definition for PARROT_HAS_C99_SNPRINTF. I assume, on first glance that > > these two macros are one in the same and should be united. > > They are not. Please see the code in config/auto/snprintf/test.in - > this is a C program built and run by Configure.pl, to determine which > flavor of snprintf exists on a platform. The semantics of the return > value differ. So I don't think we should unite those two definitions.
Okay, I figured there must be a reason why we have definitions for PARROT_HAS_C99_SNPRINTF and PARROT_HAS_SNPRINTF. I just couldn't find it when I looked. > Were there some warnings you were trying to fix? If so, what were the > warnings? We can try to find another way to fix them; please reopen the > ticket if this is the case. Just warnings about redefining the snprintf macro. It was defined in two different places, and it's definition was based on both of those two flags above. I was looking for a way to unify the definitions for snprintf, and I wanted to know if a unification could go further then that as well. --Andrew Whitworth
