From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 11:27:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C40A16A41F for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A3143D5C for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jBHBR6XP083048; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:27:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id jBHBR6nS083047; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:27:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:27:06 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org> <24068.1134818291@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <24068.1134818291@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@phk.freebsd.dk on Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM +0100 Cc: current@freebsd.org, Brian Candler Subject: Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:07 -0000 On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:18:11PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: ... > >I love the idea of extensible printf, and it's way way useful > >when handling ip addresses, hexdump and whatnot; but > >portability is an issue, and nobody would use it if > >the source code doesn't port to other systems. > > Everything under the sun has a portability cost these days because > the portable subset of the UNIX API is still too small to support > sensible programming. ... > For an extensible printf, I see little reason to add yet another > API, the GLIBC people got here first, the API is not optimal, but > it does work. so let me understand - perhaps i am missing this point. are you saying that if you link a program that uses these extensions with glibc it behaves as expected ? Then the portability issue would disappear (i.e. moves elsewhere where hopefully it has been solved already). cheers luigi