Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: None <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 06/23/2005 12:19:47
> > > Exactly what puts() does is up to us in the areas of "standards undefined"
> > > behavior, is it not? So we are free to add "(null)" support as I
> > > understand it. I really don't see why we shouldn't. What do you think will
> > > be broken or what will we lose?
> > yes, we are free to add it to our puts.
> > however, i think it's a bad idea as i wrote in my another mail.
> "because it introduces another non-standard extension"?
i meant "because the idea to produce (null) and suppress coredump is
> > besides, gcc is also free to optimize puts not to use our puts.
> True. And then we are free to reconsider what to do about this problem
> when the time comes. But it seems a relatively unlikely case that we
> would be able to easily deal with, should the time come. So why worry?
because once we add such an adhoc extention,
we likely have to keep it forever.