From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13836 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2003 19:55:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13826 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 19:55:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 19:55:39 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MJtdD16644 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:55:39 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MJtcq19973; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:55:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-16.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.16]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MJtbk32094; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:55:37 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3MJtWC22439; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:55:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:55:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030422195532.ZM22438@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: PATCH: Add type_sprint() function to return type in string form" (Apr 22, 3:21pm) References: <20030418152426.A93348@molenda.com> <20030422032629.GB5033@nevyn.them.org> <3EA57249.5020104@redhat.com> <20030422165455.GA31686@nevyn.them.org> <3EA57BD9.5020502@redhat.com> <20030422173348.GA325@nevyn.them.org> <3EA5961E.3060102@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: PATCH: Add type_sprint() function to return type in string form Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 On Apr 22, 3:21pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The ARI indicates that all sprintf calls should be replaced with either > snprintf or xasprintf. I think the ARI is a useful tool for noticing potential problems in gdb, but I don't think you should be using the ARI for making claims about what is or is not acceptable in GDB. If you can point to past discussion(s) where this was decided, then that would be okay. (I'm not convinced that the ARI is a codification of all such past discussions.) After all, the ARI also says "You can not take this seriously!" Kevin