On 2014-01-23 11:25:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > 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 :)
>
> Oh ... gotcha. Yeah, it's possible that snprintf would behave in a way
> that masks the fact that it doesn't really recognize the "z" flag, but
> that seems rather unlikely to me. More likely it would abandon processing
> the %-sequence on grounds it's malformed.
Yea, hopefully.
> I will try the patch on my old HPUX dinosaur, which I'm pretty sure
> does not know "z", and verify this is the case.
I don't know how, but I've introduced a typo in the version I sent if
you haven't noticed yet, there's a " missing in
PGAC_FUNC_PRINTF_SIZE_T_SUPPORT. "%zu" instead of "%zu
> Also, I'm guessing Windows' version of snprintf doesn't have "z" either.
> Could someone try the patch's configure test program on Windows and see
> what the result is?
I've attached a version of that here, for $windowsperson's
convenience. I hope I got the llp stuff right...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services