From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50790-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4139 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2007 21:59:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 4131 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2007 21:59:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:59:49 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-207-204.inter.net.il [84.228.207.204]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id HUQ05589 (AUTH halo1); 	Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:57:02 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:59:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uabrn37zk.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070915184002.GA31306@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:40:02 -0400)
Subject: Re: [patch] printf "%p" gdb internal error fix
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20060910172037.GA3886@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200609101931.k8AJVF4m026090@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070904141926.GA27477@caradoc.them.org> <ur6letb4t.fsf@gnu.org> <20070904205307.GA17062@caradoc.them.org> <umyvojoc7.fsf@gnu.org> <20070915135229.GA15879@caradoc.them.org> <ud4wkj6tc.fsf@gnu.org> <20070915161220.GA21878@caradoc.them.org> <uabrnkdbv.fsf@gnu.org> <20070915184002.GA31306@caradoc.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:40:02 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > > 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.

Yes, there's no single way that is right here.  I've chosen to talk
vaguely about a "C standard" because saying something precise would be
very hard without going into a lot of detail.  And I used C99
(implicitly) as the baseline because I believe more and more C
programmers regard it as _the_ standard as time passes.