--- Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@...> wrote: > Are we ready to merge
the branch to head?
I would like to cleanup the [_]snprintf business first. Is having
a pre-C99 MS _snprintf and a C99-compliant snprintf likely to cause
I know several projects do this:
#define snprintf _snprintf
That could still be done, but with alternative C99 version they could
choose instead to use the safer function in libmingwex.a.
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas --
> MinGW-dvlpr mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlprhttp://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Save your important files online for easy access!
--- Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001@...> wrote:
> --- Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@...> wrote: > Are we ready to merge
> the branch to head?
> > Earnie.
> I would like to cleanup the [_]snprintf business first. Is having
> a pre-C99 MS _snprintf and a C99-compliant snprintf likely to cause
Based on the comments, especially those identifying MS thoughts, C99-compliance
at the C runtime is most likely to cause confusion for a long time regardless
of the function. We just need to make sure that we document how to get MS
compatibility with the macro guards that are in place.
> I know several projects do this:
> #ifdef _XXX_WIN32
> #define snprintf _snprintf
So, we define _snprintf to output a warning specifying how to define the
appropriate guards to get the correct functions.
> That could still be done, but with alternative C99 version they could
> choose instead to use the safer function in libmingwex.a.
I agree. I would like to get the cvs head updated with the branch so that
Cygwin will use it by default. Hmm... I wonder if anyone has tried building
the utils directory or setup with V2. Moving to head will help find the
--- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> ---
--- Cygwin: POSIX on Windows <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> ---
--- Minimalist GNU for Windows <http://www.mingw.org/> ---
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience