Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/21/2005 16:35:44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2005, at 7:33 PM, der Mouse wrote:
> >Maybe that's because it isn't in the manual page.
> That's precisely my point.
I don't think it is. If it is, you're making your arguement very=20
Yes, whomever added this behavior to printf(3) should have updated the=20
manual page over a decade ago.
However the arguement (in general) hasn't been, "Oh, if we'd known=20
printf(3) was supposed to do this we would have told you to add option BAR=
to the gcc config." If it had been, we (I at least) would have said, "Yes,=
the printf(3) documentation was incomplete. We are sorry. What do we now=20
do to get that behavior with gcc?"
The arguements have been more, "It's the compiler's choice" or "It is=20
better to core dump." Which aren't related to the documentation.
Given how many times NetBSD has been a "UTSL" project, I don't see how the
fact that man 3 printf doesn't describe the %s NULL behavior really can
justify a decision going forward. Helping explain how we got where we are,=
most certainly! But not justify a course of action.
To be honest, I think we should just adjust puts(). I think the=20
optimization that gcc is performing can be a good one, and I'd rather=20
adjust puts() than lose the optimization. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----