At 10:52 PM 6/20/2005 +0300, Arto Huusko wrote:
>>Not so much of C-qua-C semantics, but of C-on-NetBSD semantics.  As I
>>remarked above, very little of our code does not depend in some way on
>>behaviour not promised by the C standard.
>
>I'd like to point out that NetBSD code that depends on printf("%s", NULL)
>working on NetBSD is on quite thin ground. As far as I can see, the manual
>page for NetBSD printf() in no way tells that it is OK for argument for
>%s to be NULL. It could be said that that is just as undefined on NetBSD
>as in the C standard.

And if the code being transformed is in a shared library, which results in 
breaking other code that isn't (directly) calling printf?

With all the work that is done for backwards compatibility for older NetBSD 
systems, I'm surprised that nobody has yet expressed concern about this 
kind of impact. Shared library semantics are already defined, in effect, by 
the prior art....

--Terry