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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:12:20PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> We can, if we have the exact title and other details.

All I know is:

  http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards

Sorry.

> > Can't we describe it as a mostly complete C89 printf instead of a
> > mostly incomplete C99 printf?
> 
> I don't think it's right to ask our readers to be familiar with the
> history of the C standards.  That is why I didn't even mention C99 (or
> any other standard).

I don't think it's right to have it both ways.  If we say it behaves
like the C "printf" function - which I personally think is the most
useful way to describe it, for readers' benefit - then it behooves us
to say which one.  There are probably a dozen or more variations.  I
can name five off the top of my head: C89, C99, SUSv2, Microsoft VC++
(%I64), C++ (which has wchar_t but not some other C99 features).

I don't feel terribly strongly about this, though, and you're
definitely the expert.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery