On 04/28/2011 12:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> What I'm thinking of doing is to set up something like:
>> #define PG_PRINTF_CHECK __printf__
> BTW, gcc 2.95.3 documents "printf", and not "__printf__".
> Suggest not including the underscores, since that's apparently a
> johnny-come-lately spelling. It's not like any of this construct
> is even faintly portable to non-gcc compilers anyway ...
>
Yeah, I think that the underscore variants got added because of cases
like ours where printf is sometimes defined as a macro. I'll just need
to make sure that this gets set before there's any possibility of that
happening.
cheers
andrew
