Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/17/2005 10:32:43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:42:00AM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> [Thus spake Christos Zoulas ("CZ: ") 9:25am...]
> CZ: I am fine with disabling the optimization, but as I said, it will make
> CZ: our compiler different. I would rather convince the gcc team to consi=
> CZ: turning the bogus behavior off permanently.
I like that idea best, however the problem is that the current compiler=20
will be out there for a while, and so we will still need to do something=20
to deal with it.
> This egregious behaviour in a compiler is absurd; I think most any other
> standard of a language would classify such a compiler as "broken, not
> to be used until fixed, and to be fixed yesterday."
> To have puts/fputs spit out "(null)" would be a much better way to handle
> this than to dump core. I don't think we should have to even cpp::#define
> this based on __gcc_version__ or whatever they call it these days -- when
> they fix the compiler, we revert the code.
I agree that "(null)" is much better than a core dump. As an application=20
programmer, it makes my life MUCH easlier. It also has an advantage of=20
making programs slightly smaller as we have one "(null)" string, not=20
perhaps a thousand.
Unfortunately, though, we can't just have a cpp define. The problem is we=
need to test according to the gcc that compiled the program, not the one=20
that compiled libc. :-(
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----