Re: vsnprintf and snprintf

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ed Beroset wrote:
>
> > Doesn't this already cover the earlier gccs?
> >
> > if test "$GCC" = "yes"; then
> >   GCCFLAGS="-Wall -std=c99 -pedantic"
> > else
> >   GCCFLAGS=
> > fi
> > AC_SUBST(GCCFLAGS)
>
> No, it doesn't, unfortunately.  I do have an autoconf macro which is 
> "add option X if it's supported", mostly for gcc; we could use that, 
> though.
>
> However, I'm reluctant to do so, partly because although these options 
> are useful for the maintainer, they're a pain in the hands of an 
> end-user with a different compiler version.

Given that, I'd probably advocate just dropping -std=c99 completely as 
you suggested.  I hope you don't mind me posting this to the list -- it 
seemed like you might have intended it to go there.

Ed



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/