Re: Patch to add string_nprintf

2001-09-17 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:35:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 04:41 AM 9/17/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote: > >--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Tom Hughes > > > wrote: > > > > The attached patch adds string_nprintf, the last > > > u

Re: Patch to add string_nprintf

2001-09-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:41 AM 9/17/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote: >--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Tom Hughes > > wrote: > > > The attached patch adds string_nprintf, the last > > unimplemented > > > function listed in strings.pod as far as I can see. > >

Re: Patch to add string_nprintf

2001-09-17 Thread Benjamin Stuhl
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Tom Hughes > wrote: > > The attached patch adds string_nprintf, the last > unimplemented > > function listed in strings.pod as far as I can see. > > Thanks; but I think I'm going to wait for the portability >

Re: Patch to add string_nprintf

2001-09-17 Thread Simon Cozens
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > The attached patch adds string_nprintf, the last unimplemented > function listed in strings.pod as far as I can see. Thanks; but I think I'm going to wait for the portability police to comment. There's every likelihood we want to write

Patch to add string_nprintf

2001-09-17 Thread Tom Hughes
The attached patch adds string_nprintf, the last unimplemented function listed in strings.pod as far as I can see. It should cope with both the differences in return values for vsnprintf between different versions of glibc but there are still a few platforms which may have problems as they have a