On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Michael Conrad <mcon...@intellitree.com> wrote: > On 7/22/2017 2:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > 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? >
How about wrapping the printf("%m") uses within the __GNU_LIBRARY__ macro? It seems that %m support has been there from the beginning of glibc. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox