On 04/27/2011 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So the question to ask is not why gcc doesn't complain about %m
> elsewhere, but why it does complain in your Windows installation.
> I'm guessing that the mingw people hacked it.  If you're lucky,
> they might have hacked in an extra switch to control the behavior ---
> I notice quite a few subsidiary switches that tweak -Wformat behavior
> in standard gcc 4.4.5.
>


Hmm. The error disappears if I use -D__USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO=1 or -posix


I don't know what other effects that might have, though. There's a 
description here: 
<http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=24832> I'll 
experiment and see what happens.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: unknown conversion %m at 2011-04-27 15:02:05 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: unknown conversion %m at 2011-04-28 00:11:01 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2011-04-27 16:55:56
	Subject: timeline garbage in pg_basebackup (was gcc 4.6 warnings -Wunused-but-set-variable)
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-04-27 15:56:51
	Subject: Re: Alignment padding bytes in arrays vs the planner