Re: [patch] printf "%p" gdb internal error fix

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:18:23PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:52:29 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com,
> > 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > May I suggest we reference a particular C or POSIX standard if we
> > are going to list exceptions?
> 
> Fine with me, but I'm not aware of the C99 document that is freely
> accessible on the net.  If you have a URL, by all means let's @uref
> it.

I don't believe there is one, but this is a well-known and published
international standard.  Can't we reference the printed version?

What I was trying to say was that our printf is an implementation of
the C89 printf function, not the C99 or Single Unix printf; that's why
it has all the missing features you noticed - in fact it has none of
the C99 additions.  Can't we describe it as a mostly complete C89
printf instead of a mostly incomplete C99 printf?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery