Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:54:52 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: the need for safe dynamic string libraries Message-ID: <20091207145452.GA78854@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <86ocmavoou.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <ygek4wzpdv3.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20091207055752.GD64905@hoeg.nl> <20091207085927.GC57764@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86iqcjt93c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091207105343.GA62012@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86ein7t5m5.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091207130433.GA71902@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86skbnrkrz.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091207133117.GA73597@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86ocmavoou.fsf@ds4.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 03:33:37PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> writes: > > But my point is-- does the functionality that was removed rely > > on a different API, or we can keep the same API and have two > > different implementation of the hopefully few things that change > > between kernel and userland > > Restoring sbuf_printf() to what it was would not change the API, but the > semantics would be different in certain cases. doesn't seem a big deal, we already have diffent behaviour in kernel vs userland for certain functions (e.g. printf() itself, if nothing else the format specifiers are different in some cases).home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091207145452.GA78854>