From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50783-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 18582 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2007 15:18:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 18569 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2007 15:18:34 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:18:27 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-210-74.inter.net.il [80.230.210.74]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id IWU44932 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:18:13 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:18:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ud4wkj6tc.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070915135229.GA15879@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:52:29 -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>
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/msg00192.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:52:29 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 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.

> When I wrote the current
> implementation, I did it with a copy of C89 open next to me (well, I
> think - I can't find the exact manual I was using) and GCC's format
> string checker, which is a fairly definitive reference.

I looked at the glibc Info manual and a draft of C99.