On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:58:35AM +1000, Craig Small wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 07:40:44PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > Is there a particular reason that we need this vsnprintf implementation? > > Could we just use the one included in libc? > > There may of been a reason. Upstream has now changed and I do know > they were looking into lots of things, the *sprintf functions included. I'm just checking on the status of this bug, so that all the GCC FTBFS bugs can be fixed sooner rather than later. Sometime ago, I looked at the bug in common/lpd_jobs.c, but was unable to figure out what semantics were intended. If the semantics intended were a concatenation of the lines, I believe there is a function which does that. Alternately, you could just remove -Werror. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature