Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: unknown conversion %m

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unknown conversion %m
Date: 2011-04-28 14:03:36
Message-ID: 4DB973B8.9060206@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/28/2011 12:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>  writes:
>> What I'm thinking of doing is to set up something like:
>>      #define PG_PRINTF_CHECK __printf__
> BTW, gcc 2.95.3 documents "printf", and not "__printf__".
> Suggest not including the underscores, since that's apparently a
> johnny-come-lately spelling.  It's not like any of this construct
> is even faintly portable to non-gcc compilers anyway ...
>

Yeah, I think that the underscore variants got added because of cases 
like ours where printf is sometimes defined as a macro. I'll just need 
to make sure that this gets set before there's any possibility of that 
happening.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2011-04-28 14:03:56
Subject: TEXT vs PG_NODE_TREE in system columns (cross column and expression statistics patch)
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-04-28 14:03:04
Subject: Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group