On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 06:25:23AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > It would be better to make this a check which is size_t dependent, > > rather than platform-dependent. > > The idea is to black list platforms that don't do %zu and there is no > way to do that without breaking cross-compilation. It is still > preferable to use that if it is available, e.g. to help format string > checks.
Compromising the autoconfiguration not work properly in the name of cross-compilation, though, is misguided. Can't you have it run the test if it's not a cross-compiler and only if it is fall back to the platform test? Or is this one of the things where autoconf falls apart because it's not written in a programming language? I suppose the best available comprehensive solution is to use PRIu*** garble in the code and then if necessary have autoconf figure out what the garble should expand to based on SIZE_MAX. Are there non-theoretical platforms that are missing both SIZE_MAX and SIZE_T_MAX defines where it isn't either 0xffffffff or 0xffffffffffffffff? (not counting where it might technically be 0x7fffffff because someone was unclear on it being unsigned -- that doesn't affect printf) > > I still don't understand why autoconf is passing C pre-processor > > directives down. > > > > #if sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(int) > > ... > > #elif sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(long) > > ... > > #endif > > > > directly in the code is much more readable. It would be nice if that worked... it did in Borland's compiler back in the day. I suppose someone on the standards committee thought it was OK to have to teach the preprocessor the entire expression syntax but not the type name syntax... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
