On Thursday 20 March 2025 23:00:54 Martin Storsjö wrote:
> And with that in mind, I'm actually wondering if we should revert
> 581532b8e49a0e10cbdfe2332a8c1d61ff3d6820 regardless of this patchset? I'm
> actually less convinced that we want to have this distinction. If we have
> printf() and wprintf() with __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO=1 semantics, then it can
> also be seen quite confusing if _tprintf() behaves differently.
>
> // Martin
When __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO=1 is enabled then we already have other
differences for other underscored printf and scanf functions.
For example _scprintf() or _snprintf() which are not affected by the
__USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO settings.
And I think that similar scenario is with _stprintf() macro.
Most common usage of _stprintf() macro is of form:
_stprintf(buffer, _T("%s"), _T("string"));
So I think that whatever mingw-w64 will do, the above call should work
independently of __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO setting.
And reverting 581532b8e49a ("headers: Fix _*tscanf and _*tprintf macros
which expands to ISO C functions") will break above usage.
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
