Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:12:02 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel printf %i? Message-ID: <20000711111202.B22283@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20000710181533.K25571@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000710173553.J25571@fw.wintelcom.net> <200007110057.RAA08039@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <20000710181533.K25571@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 10 July 2000 at 18:15:33 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> [000710 17:49] wrote: >>> * Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> [000710 17:17] wrote: >>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> any objections: >>>> >>>> Can you give me a good reason for it? To act like the libc printf() isn't >>>> a good reason, I mean do you think it will actually help anyone in ways >>>> that %d doesn't? Are you noticing tons of submissions of kernel code that >>>> have %i and don't work correctly or something? >>>> >>>> I just don't get it :-/ >>> >>> I was annoyed when I used %i and it didn't work. POLA. >> >> Can I have %Z? It should take an integer argument, and print that many >> 'fnord's. Thankyou. > > Sure, do you want it as a seperate commit or can I bundle it with the > 'i' addition? :) > > Basically what I'm getting is that %i isn't portable over to other > systems? Are there other systems that have %i in the kernel? I tend to agree that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's not exactly new functionality, so about the best it can do is to obfuscate. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20000711111202.B22283>