Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs tex

[Petr Vandrovec]

On  2 May 01 at 19:26, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> |> If the definition of printf above (extracted from glibc's stdio.h)
> |> is valid, then I suppose this is a problem with gcc.
> 
> Both glibc and gcc are perfectly correct.  You cannot have preprocessing
> directives inside the arguments of a macro call, and the standard allows
> the library to define macro version of any function.

  As I run into this problem with my packages too, would it be possible
to change bits/stdio.h to define printf() as macro even on gcc <= 2.96?
Something like

#define printf(fmt, args...) printf(fmt, ##args)

  With current situation problem appears only for users which have
gcc > 2.96 - which causes unnecessary headache for gcc and glibc
buglists, and sometime maintainers are not even aware that such
problem exists...
                                    Thanks,
                                        Petr Vandrovec
                                        address@hidden