Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2003
I can't offer any great insight, as I did not really understand the original problem. "%_" or "%"SVf should give the same behaviour, as noone (except me) does -DCHECK_FORMAT. The original problem might have arisen because a function had managed to gain a FORMAT attribute. These are added in proto.h, but only #ifdef CHECK_FORMAT. Perhaps I could recreate the problem with the sources, but I can't resync through my firewall so I am dependent on snapshots. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ing-Simmons [mailto:nick.ing-simmons@elixent.com] Sent: 20 January 2003 11:18 To: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Cc: nick@unfortu.net; hv@crypt.org; 'Nick Ing-Simmons'; Rafael Garcia-Suarez; perl5-porters@perl.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] %_ (was Re: [PATCH] operation on `PL_na' may be und efined) Robin Barker <Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk> writes: >It was me! It is used with -DCHECK_FORMAT to do printf format checking. >See Porting/pumpkin.pod. Well since you have admited basic understanding of that stuff: any idea how we keep that but allow for %_ format? It seems something in recent patches to switch to %_ confuse something > >Robin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nick Ing-Simmons [mailto:nick@ing-simmons.net] >Sent: 19 January 2003 15:51 >To: nick@unfortu.net >Cc: hv@crypt.org; perl5-porters@perl.org; Rafael Garcia-Suarez >Subject: Re: [PATCH] %_ (was Re: [PATCH] operation on `PL_na' may be >undefined) > > >[snip] >> >>I think Nick I-S did whatever magic is needed to make gcc argument >check >>it as a *printf format, > >I may have assisted but it wasn't me originally - GCC's __attribute__() >stuff >gives me a headache. > >>and the fact that there's a warning probably means >>that I was wrong and you were right not to apply it. But I've not had >time >>to look yet. >> >>Nicholas Clark >-- >Nick Ing-Simmons >http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or >privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. >If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or >disclose such information. > >NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any >attachments are free from viruses. > >NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 >Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. >------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Nick Ing-Simmons http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. -------------------------------------------------------------------