On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:03:46PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:20:39PM -0500, James Chacon wrote:
> > The bug you cite doesn't discuss that. It's simply noting that 
> > printf("%s", NULL) is undefined behavior [..]
> 
> Which, IMHO, we should avoid in our code. How to catch it easily is an
> open question.

I do agree w. Christos here that if historically our printf has returned
(null) here that should probably be the behavior we should continue. The 
standard just says this is undefined behavior in that case, not that we have
to abort/core.

James