From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 13 13:01:02 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1533A16A41F
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:01:02 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31D943D76
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:00:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4F7BC66;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:00:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:41:34 +1100."
	<20051213230723.T3248@epsplex.bde.org> 
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:00:51 +0100
Message-ID: <12349.1134478851@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: printf behaviour with illegal or malformed format string 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:01:02 -0000

In message <20051213230723.T3248@epsplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:

>Now I think they should be very rarely needed and more rarely used.
>Using them mainly gives unportable code that breaks especially badly
>on systems which don't support extensions.

Portability is good, but it shouldn't get in the way of improving
our programs.

>I think these belong in specialized applications or libraries.  %T is
>already handled better by strftime/gmtime/localtime.

There's no handling for fractional seconds there.

>I mean aborting instead of returning NULL for failing malloc()s breaks
>defined behaviour.

Right, that's deliberate.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.