Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:30:08 -0800
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Cc:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: %a and %A formats
Message-ID:  <20001211023008.X16205@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <200012110959.eBB9xiK26188@mobile.wemm.org>; from peter@netplex.com.au on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:59:43AM -0800
References:  <xzpzoi43ulo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200012110959.eBB9xiK26188@mobile.wemm.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> [001211 01:59] wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> writes:
> > > Glancing at it, I don't see it working properly on different
> > > endianness.
> > 
> > You're right, I didn't think about endianness. It should be a trivial
> > fix (as long as you don't expect it to handle NUXI-style machines)
> 
> Dont forget gcc's -fformat-extensions code needs to have corresponding
> patches to check these keyword types.  We compile the kernel with this flag
> specifically for this reason.  It understands all the wierd formats (eg: %B
> etc).

The more I think about this patch, the less I like it.  While the
work is good and it's probably pretty handy, the kernel really
doesn't print out too many addresses afaik.  A better idea would
be to fix the inaddr->char* routines to be mpsafe like I've done
with inet_ntoa_r().

I just don't want to wind up sometime later wondering if %Z is a
good flag to use to print out an mbuf. :)

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001211023008.X16205>