Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 20:23:41 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au> To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: strings - elf vs aout Message-ID: <199812081023.UAA26960@nymph.dtir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <199812072002.WAA29135@ceia.nordier.com> from Robert Nordier at "Sat, 07 Dec 1998 22:02:29 %2B0200" References: <199812072002.WAA29135@ceia.nordier.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 7th December 1998, Robert Nordier wrote: >Nate Williams wrote: >> > > Shall I devise and commit a fix for this behaviour? >> > >> > If you want to do this, I'd suggest making it an option. Current >> > standards, such as the Single UNIX Specification, apparently regard a >> > printable string as 4 or more isprint(3) chars followed by '\n' or >> > '\0'. >> >> Then 'strings' for ELF is broken, since \t is not a newline of end of a >> string, and Steven's comments are valid. Hmm. Strict adherence to this '\n' or '\0' rule would suck a lot. Let's not "fix" that. What idiots wrote this spec? >Reverting to the traditional approach would be a double-step from >strict SUS conformance, as well as a single step away from standard >GNU binutils behavior. It also says "Additional implementation-dependent strings may be written." So I won't feel too bad hardcoding tab. It just sucks too much otherwise. >However, if the consensus is that these issues are of little >importance or relevance, I wouldn't object particularly. I'm going to add '\t' back to strings unless I'm shouted down. But I never get anything done except on weekends, so there's plenty of time to work up a good argument... Stephen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812081023.UAA26960>