On 7/22/2017 2:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Denys,
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jody Bruchon <j...@jodybruchon.com> wrote:
On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe <nietzs...@lysator.liu.se>
wrote:
Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated
'%a’. However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can
be built without support for it.
How come %m is POSIX when I didn't see any mention of it in this page?
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fprintf.html
It does not appear to be part of POSIX or the Single UNIX Specification. The
glibc man page (as of 2016-12-12) even indicates that it is a glibc-specific
extension:
*m *(Glibc extension; supported by uClibc and musl.) Print output of
/strerror(errno)/. No argument is required.
This sounds like every libc has already conceded to implementing it.
Let's benefit from it then?
No, not every libc. I would not have spent the time and effort to develop
the patch, contribute it, rework it and contribute a second iteration if
it was not for a good reason now, would I.
Ciao,
Johannes
I believe his point is that your patch adds size to busybox which is
unneeded for most users. (btw, it's recommended to post bloatcheck
numbers with a patch. If you show a small number from bloatcheck then
there is less to argue about)
Which libc are you using? Do you think %m support could be checked with
an ifdef?
-Mike
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
