On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:53:26 -0800, Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Provides a portable implementation of this common allocating sprintf() > API found in many, but not yet all, of the platforms we support. > If the platform provides vasprintf() we simply wrap it, otherwise we > implement it - either way callers can use it regardless of platform. I didn't see any closure to my question as to whether we should just be exporting these as 'asprintf' et al., instead of creating a new name. Do we trust autoconf enough to expect to be able to correctly detect the presence of a 'real' asprintf so that our replacement only be used on systems not having one? If so, perhaps just using the standard name would make the code easier to maintain? Or not? -- [email protected]
pgpagkbk8mjI4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
