Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: None <,,>
From: James Chacon <>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 06/21/2005 20:54:03
The following reply was made to PR port-xen/29887; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: James Chacon <>
To: Jason Thorpe <>
Cc: Greywolf <>, John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <>,,,,
Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:53:20 -0500

 On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 12:49:46PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
 > On Jun 21, 2005, at 3:14 AM, Greywolf wrote:
 > >With regard to "(null)" vs. "Bus error (Core dumped).", that  
 > >doesn't matter
 > >to me, other than being a potential nicety.  What matters to me is the
 > >compiler is pretending it knows what I want, even though I am not  
 > >asking
 > >for it.  It's like walking into a shop and asking for a ham and  
 > >jack sandwich
 > >and getting mortadella and mozzarella.  Sure, it might be "better",  
 > >but
 > >it's not what I expected, much less what I asked for.
 > When you called printf() (or puts(), for that matter), you have, by  
 > definition, asked for the standards-described effect.
 So no implementation is ever allowed to extend any standards defined function?
 > If you want to depend on extensions, then you should call an API that  
 > explicitly provides them, period!
 I see. So there's either "completely standards conforming" calls or "other".
 i.e. we should now have printfEx for anything printf related the standard
 didn't cover...