On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Tom Browder wrote: > But I don't think the %z changes in other files are so bad--should be > C89 portable, no?
It is/was already C89 portable because that's our format string specification. It's not a c89/c99 function, it's just a BU function designed to look similar. The only reason the compiler is barking about them is because we mark them as _BU_ATTR_PRINTF23_ which is __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, 2, 3))) which makes the compiler check the format string argument. When compiling strict, those should get disabled because they result in false-positives. Something probably isn't getting set right if you're seeing warnings/errors. There were rumors that the very latest gcc finally added customization options to inform the compiler about customized format strings like ours. Regardless, %z and size_t are really good things -- we should be using them more, not less. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
