From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17719 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2007 16:12:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17709 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2007 16:12:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:12:24 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D760982A2; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:12:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F282198108; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:12:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWaFo-0002vc-FX; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] printf "%p" gdb internal error fix Message-ID: <20070915161220.GA21878@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060910172037.GA3886@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200609101931.k8AJVF4m026090@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070904141926.GA27477@caradoc.them.org> <20070904205307.GA17062@caradoc.them.org> <20070915135229.GA15879@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 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 > > 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