RE: cb/pedantic-build-for-developers, POSIX-but-not-C99 and -Wno-pedantic-ms-format

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On September 22, 2021 1:22 PM, I wrote:
>On September 22, 2021 12:13 PM, Junio C Hamano:
>>Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I.e. complaining about "%m$" instead of "%" in printf formats, it's
>>> easy enough to fix in my case, it's just something I used to
>>> de-duplicate a rather complex format, this makes it C(89|99)-compliant:
>>>
>>>     -       strbuf_addf(&fmt, "%%s%%s%%s-%%0%1$lud.%%0%1$lud-%%s-%%s-%%s",
>>>     -                   (unsigned long)tmp.len);
>>>     +       strbuf_addf(&fmt, "%%s%%s%%s-%%0%lud.%%0%lud-%%s-%%s-%%s",
>>>     +                   (unsigned long)tmp.len, (unsigned long)tmp.len);
>>>
>>> But in general, do we view -pedantic as an implicit endorsement that
>>> we should be using less POSIX and more standard C than we otherwise would?
>>>
>>> I may be wrong, but I believe that construct is widely portable, we
>>> don't use it in the main source, but in the po/ files (so anything
>>> that uses git + gettext tests for this already):
>>
>>Reordering (_("%s %s"), a, b) to ("%2$s %1$s", a, b) is essential to make po/ work.
>>
>>While I do not think of a reason why it should not work, I am not sure duplicating (%1$s %1$s", a) falls into the same category.
>>
>>Any solution that makes the per-cent ridden format string is better
>
>Positional parameters do not work on all POSIX platforms. Please do not do this. NonStop will be locked out of future git releases.

I went back and checked the NonStop case history, which I should have done first. The issue was in wprintf and the fix was deployed, it just never made our development box.

Nevermind. I'm sorry.

-Randall