On 2014-01-23 11:14:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > OK, I'll take a look. Thanks.
> > I am not too > > happy about the runtime check as the test isn't all that meaningful, but > > I couldn't think of anything better. > > Yeah, it's problematic for cross-compiles, but no more so than configure's > existing test for "%n$" support. In practice, since both these features > are required by C99, I think it wouldn't be such an issue for most people. Currently we automatically fall back to our implementation if we're cross compiling unless I am missing something, that's a bit odd, but it should work ;) I was wondering more about the nature of the runtime check than the fact that it's a runtime check at all... E.g. snprintf.c simply skips over unknown format characters and might not have been detected as faulty on 32bit platforms by that check. Which might be considered a good thing :) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
