From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32600 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2007 18:40:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 32591 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2007 18:40:10 -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 18:40:05 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09BE982A2; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:40:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BA798108; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:40:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWcYk-0008Dn-Rk; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:40:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] printf "%p" gdb internal error fix Message-ID: <20070915184002.GA31306@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> <20070915161220.GA21878@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/msg00197.txt.bz2 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