[PD-dev] snprintf vs. sprintf_s?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:26 PM, zmoelnig at iem.at wrote:

> Quoting Russell Bryant <russell at russellbryant.net>:
>
>> Yeah, that sounds like a better check than the custom MSW define.
>>
>> If you wanted to take it a step further, it would be pretty  
>> trivial to add a
>> check for snprintf to the configure script.  That way, when building
>>  Pd for .Net
>>   or whatever (which I assume uses some other build system), the  
>> appropriate
>> HAVE_SNPRINTF define will not be present.
>
> the only problem with that i see is, that when building with .NET you
> usually do not do configure (once you have installed all the
> (gnu)tools to be able to run configure, you probably will want to use
> gcc instead of the .NET compiler)

Who's using the MS compilers?  We would save ourselves a lot of  
effort and make the code cleaner if we used gcc/autoconf on all  
platforms.  According to Thomas Grill, gcc's code is comparable in  
terms of optimization to MSVC.

.hc

> one solution (which i use and which i don't really like) to this is to
> have a non-generated configMSW.h.
>
> btw, is there a way to specify at compile-time which file to include?
> something like:
>
> #define CONFIG_H_FILE "config.h"
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_H_FILE
> # include CONFIG_H_FILE
> #endif
>
> (this won't work, but is there something similar?)
>
>
> fgmasd.r
> IOhannes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

                                               http://at.or.at/hans/