We want to use positional arguments in translatable strings
that have more than one argument so that translators can change
the order of them, but the question is: Should we also use
positional arguments in translatable strings with only one
argument? I think it makes most sense that way, partially
so that translators don't even have to be aware of the
non-positional syntax and partially because "translatable
strings use positional arguments" is an easier rule for us
to remember than "transitional strings which have more than
one argument use positional arguments". But let me know if
you have a different opinion.
Adds an interface that uses fmt under the hood, which is much more
flexible than printf, particularly for localization purposes, given fmt
supports positional formatters in a cross-platform manner out of the box
with no configuration necessary.
Time for yet another new iteration of working around the
"surface destruction during boot" problem...
This time, the strategy is to use a mutex in MainAndroid.cpp.
Now that we've converted all of the shader generators over to using fmt,
we can drop the old Write() member function and perform a rename
operation on the WriteFmt() to turn it into the new Write() function.
All changes within this are the removal of a <cstdarg> header, since the
previous printf-based Write() required it, and renaming. No functional
changes are made at all.
Noticed missing include as a build failure on gcc-11:
```
[ 15%] Building CXX object Source/Core/Common/CMakeFiles/common.dir/Config/Config.cpp.o
Source/Core/Common/Config/Config.cpp:23:24:
error: 'unique_lock' in namespace 'std' does not name a template type
23 | using WriteLock = std::unique_lock<std::shared_mutex>;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
Source/Core/Common/Config/Config.cpp:11:1:
note: 'std::unique_lock' is defined in header '<mutex>';
did you forget to '#include <mutex>'?
```
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Completes the migration over to using the fmt-formatting WriteFmt
function. The next PR will rename all usages of WriteFmt, while
simultaneously getting rid of the old printf code.
Unfortunately, compilers will issue warnings when using offsetof with
non-standard layout types even when offsetof actually works fine here;
just having a virtual function is enough to trigger the warning...
Let's just stop the scan threads explicitly in destructors instead of
relying on member destruction order.
JosJuice