Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 06/16/2005 12:05:08
On Jun 17, 12:56am, firstname.lastname@example.org (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
| if no one objects, i will:
| - add some note to printf(3) to discourage the use of "(null)".
| - remove code to produce the "(null)" from wprintf and friends.
This has been historical practice since the mid 80's. People expect *printf(3)
to print (null) when you pass it a null string. It is a lot better to print
(null) than to core-dump... Trust me, I remember how it was back then.
| - and disable the optimization in in-tree gcc.
This will just muddle the waters even further. Imagine when a poor
sod compiles a new version of gcc and some code randomly core-dumps
with the new gcc where it works with the in-tree gcc. I.e. "Our"
gcc will be different than the rest of the world. I may disagree
with the optimization, but this is the de-facto gcc behavior.
In short, I oppose all three changes. I still think that changing
puts and fputs to behave like printf() is a saner choice. I would
prefer if core voted for it, and since I am in core, I will abstain
from this one.