Re: snprintf()

On Fri, Feb/ 2/07 11:20:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kate F <kate(at)cats(dot)meow(dot)at> writes:
> > On Fri, Feb/ 2/07 10:52:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wouldn't really have expected that to happen on any *BSD, but you
> >> could look into the generated Makefile.global to find out.
>
> > I don't see anything that looks relevant for my Makefile.global; I
> > would be surprised if NetBSD's were overridden too!
>
> Sorry for not being specific: the thing to check is whether that
> file's definition for LIBOBJS includes snprintf.o. If it does,
> the code in src/port/snprintf.c would get sucked in.
>
> If it doesn't, then I confess bafflement as to why snprintf isn't
> acting as you'd expect on your machine.

Just these:

LIBOBJS = copydir.o dirmod.o exec.o noblock.o path.o pipe.o pgsleep.o
pgstrcasecmp.o qsort.o qsort_arg.o sprompt.o thread.o

(More than I expected, actually)

I am imagining the compiler (gcc, here) has some flags to explicitly
select if C99 (which is what I tested my stand-alone example with)
or SUS behaviour is to be used. I'm not really sure how I'd set that,
though - I imagine I'd need to recompile the backend with -std=C99?

Regards,

--
Kate