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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091207145452.GA78854>