------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=594
--- Comment #4 from Philip Hazel <ph10@???> 2007-09-07 15:12:35 ---
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Craig Silverstein wrote:
> } #ifdef HAVE_WINDOWS_H
> } #define snprintf _snprintf
> } #endif
>
> This looks like the right change to me. Philip, let me know if you'd
> like an official patch.
Are you sure? I know that snprintf() is not part of the C90 standard,
but it is in C99. It isn't used in any of my C code (I stick to C90), so
the only place it appears is in the C++ modules. I think the same is
true for anything related to "long long". But why should any
implementation have _snprintf() and not snprintf()? [Not, of course,
that I understand anything about Windows, as people on this list well
know!]
If that is the change that's wanted, I can trivially make it without
needing an official patch. However, we haven't seen any other complaints
of this nature on this list. What do other Windows users think? Have you
also run into this issue? Does it depend on the particular version of
Windows and/or compiler and/or library that is in use?
I'm going to try to pick up on all the outstanding issues next week, so
it would be good to know exactly what to do with this.
Philip
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
