Re: Adding %m conversion to the printf(3) family

[Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>]

On 2015-10-23 23:28, Mouse wrote:
> > Subject: Adding %m conversion to the printf(3) family
>
> Didn't we discuss this recently?  I have a fuzzy memory we did.
>
> *checking*

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2015/08/21/msg009282.html

> Yes, we did.  Though the starting point was rather different, we did
> discuss adding %m support to printf.  It was just a couple of months
> ago, too - starting 2015-08-21.  (You even contributed to the
> discussion!)
>
> As a quick summary of my stance there, which hasn't changed: I think
> that, ideally, %m should go away entirely; if it exists in printf,
> there should be a way to get -Wformat warnings as if it didn't
> (preferably defaulted on).
>
> Unless someone says something more than a rehash of stuff from August,
> I don't expect to say anything further in this thread.

This is more of a follow on rather than a re-hash.
NetBSD's gcc now spits un-solveable warnings in my code which i find 
unacceptable.

Christos put forth 3 possible solutions to my problem. Here they are:

> Then it works... To do this "right" would require:
>
>     - an additional annotation (I know what I am doing)
> or
>     - the ability to convert from syslog to printf (weakens the tests)
> or
>     - make printf understand %m and forget about syslog format

I chose the last option, which is why I'm talking here.

Roy