From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199701121929.OAA03612@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: PLEASE try compiling snprintf.c (was: Re: snprintf.c uploaded)
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:29:49 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970112110125.774A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> from
 "Marc Slemko" at Jan 12, 97 11:17:31 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> Try linking something and you will notice that you need cvt, gcvt, etc.
> I think cvt.c and gvct.c are all that I needed to add to make it work.
> >From my tests, I think there are a few bugs to hunt down in the code
> too...

Hmmm... on the systems I've tried, *cvt()s are already available :/

> 
> I think what we should end up doing is something like:
> 
> #if defined(HAVE_SNPRINTF)
> #define ap_snprintf snprintf
> #define ap_vsnprintf vsnprintf
> #elif defined(USE_SPRINTF_FOR_SNPRINTF)
> /* big comment about how bad this is */
> (wrappers to call sprintf)
> #else
> (stuff for ap_snprintf and ap_vsnpinrtf)
> #endif
> 
> with the USE_SPRINTF_FOR_SNPRINTF bit being optional.  Personally, I don't
> see the harm in including it as long as:
> 	- there is a nice big scary warning message
> 	- it is not done automatically at all
> 	- it isn't even documented outside ap_snprintf.c
> 

Hmmm.... I would be happier if the USE_SPRINTF_FOR_SNPRINTF was as
close to the end as possible :) I'll work something out... I have
to convince myself to overrule my -1 about that.


-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"