From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32495 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2006 10:07:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 32412 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2006 10:07:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:07:29 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HQH11705; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:07:19 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-209-17.inter.net.il [83.130.209.17]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CNF87180 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:07:17 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:07:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060120230641.GA21181@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:06:41 -0500) Subject: Re: [ob] More warnings; Call for assistance Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060117151730.GA2420@nevyn.them.org> <20060117152156.GA3115@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0601171137yffbcd4exefdefe7c8a79bbf3@mail.gmail.com> <20060117194624.GA10188@nevyn.them.org> <20060120230641.GA21181@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:06:41 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > avoid the use of standard printf > > > > Avoid? how? are you saying that we should write our own version of > > printf? > > Certainly we shouldn't write a new one - but the advantage of being a > GNU project and licensed under the GPL is that there's already at least > two we can choose from, probably more :-) Doing so would probably get us also the possible bugs of those implementations, but that's a minor issue. A more important issue is how do we convince ourselves that the implementation we use does not blow up in some cases as well, just in different ones? `printf' implementations are traditionally reckless about bad format strings. Are the ones you suggest any better?