Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: None <port-xen-maintainer@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 06/17/2005 17:33:02
The following reply was made to PR port-xen/29887; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
To: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
Cc: Christos Zoulas <christos@zoulas.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>, gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org,
port-xen-maintainer@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@NetBSD.org,
netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org, tech-userlevel@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:32:43 -0700
--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:42:00AM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> [Thus spake Christos Zoulas ("CZ: ") 9:25am...]
>=20
> 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=
der
> 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."
>=20
> 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=
=20
need to test according to the gcc that compiled the program, not the one=20
that compiled libc. :-(
Take care,
Bill
--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQFCswk7Wz+3JHUci9cRAsz0AJ9uu0KsrUMJPw8gZyNviAnIlTH41gCfQLP9
Es8GWS6NjEFAF2jC+quV2B0=
=Nc9Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt--