> But I don't think the %z changes in other files are so bad--should be > C89 portable, no?
I'd argue that since bu_log is not a C89 function, its set of supported format specifiers should not be altered to conform to C89 or any other standard (even if that would suppress false-positive compiler warnings). bu_log supports whatever specifiers we find convenient, and its convenient for us to borrow from C89, and C99, and use some of our own specifiers too. It may make sense to alter the bu_log implementation to conform to C89, but not the bu_log format string specification. So for example, in the case of %z, making bu_log C89 compliant doesn't mean you need to remove its support for %z in the format string, you just need to edit the bu_vls_vprintf implementation to handle %z for all c89 platforms (not just windows). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
