Hi Denys,
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jody Bruchon wrote:
> > On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glib
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 wrote:
On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe
wrote:
Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Michael Conrad 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,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
>
> 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.
Correction. It's since glibc 1.06.
I've looked in the old ChangeLog entries and saw this: