Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: None <,,>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 06/23/2005 03:21:05
The following reply was made to PR port-xen/29887; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
To: jhawk@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:19:47 +0900

 > > > 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
 fundamentally bad."
 > > 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.