Remove vestigial HAVE_LARGE_SNPRINTF_SUPPORT checks

[GrabYourPitchforks]

This also silences a few CodeQL violations, since the tool thought this was shipping code. May as well delete unused code rather than add suppressions.

[jkotas]

SSCANF_SUPPORT_ll can be deleted too.

[GrabYourPitchforks]

I see a possible reference to it here:
https://github.com/dotnet/diagnostics/blob/cc5eca29afa2d9cacf6700ddc8d843082b5955c6/src/shared/pal/src/cruntime/printf.cpp#L36-L40

Not sure whether line 37 or 39 should be preserved. Can you advise?

[jkotas]

You link is for the PAL clone in dotnet/diagnostic repo. It may be still needed there.

The printf.cpp file does not exist in dotnet/runtime repo. We have been actively working on eliminating the PAL in dotnet/runtime repo. Many files that still exist in other PAL clones have been deleted in dotnet/runtime.

[GrabYourPitchforks]

You link is for the PAL clone in dotnet/diagnostic repo. It may be still needed there. ... Many files that still exist in other PAL clones have been deleted in dotnet/runtime.

Right. I was concerned that if I deleted that clause from the runtime repo's cmake file, it would automatically be synced to the diagnostics repo's cmake file, potentially causing errors in that repo.

Are you saying that I don't need to worry about this? It's safe for me to delete the clause from the runtime repo's cmake file, and it won't negatively impact the diagnostics repo?

[jkotas]

It is safe to delete the clause from the runtime repo.

The PAL sync into diagnostic repo is done manually once in a blue moon. The next one will have to deal with printf.cpp deletion where SSCANF_SUPPORT_ll was used.

[GrabYourPitchforks]

I guess CI went green overnight then? :)

[jkotas]

Yes. The one failing let is a known issue.