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