Bruno Haible <bruno <at> clisp.org> writes: > Yes; it does not make sense for a library to call a function that may call > xalloc_die(). Using xvasprintf results in small and maintainable code. > You could also do it without xvasprintf: perform similar code as in > error.c, really calling vfprintf.
But that is exactly what I am hoping the glibc maintainers will do - add verror to their interface, then our verror module can probably be obsoleted in favor of our error module matching their interface. But getting glibc to change is a slow process, so I settled for verror in the meantime, which can call xalloc_die, rather than duplicating and having to maintain a lot of code. > To avoid the code duplication, you > could move the bulk of code from error.c to verror.c and then have the > 'error' module rely on 'verror'. Indeed. But that sentiment of code sharing is exactly opposite your original rejection of my proposed changes of adding verror in the error module. I don't want error to depend on verror, because then it makes our separation from glibc that much harder to overcome. I had to settle for the reverse; verror depending on error. -- Eric Blake
