On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:48:29PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> su, 2006-08-20 kello 18:08 +0200, Wouter Verhelst kirjoitti:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:59:17PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > [...]
> > > fprintf(stderr, "Could not read file: %s: %s\n", filename,
> > > strerro
su, 2006-08-20 kello 18:08 +0200, Wouter Verhelst kirjoitti:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:59:17PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> [...]
> > fprintf(stderr, "Could not read file: %s: %s\n", filename,
> > strerror(errno));
> >
> > Please consider the above a minimal requirement for an
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bullshit. The above could also have been done as
> sprintf(buf, "Could not read file %s", filename)
> perror(buf);
There's a buffer overflow waiting to happen.
> or, perhaps (depending on what the file actually was):
> perror("Could not read config
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:59:17PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
[...]
> fprintf(stderr, "Could not read file: %s: %s\n", filename,
> strerror(errno));
>
> Please consider the above a minimal requirement for an error message: it
> reports the operation that was attempted (reading a
su, 2006-08-20 kello 12:48 +0200, Hendrik Sattler kirjoitti:
> And there is always perror() which is something like:
> printf("%s%s%s\n",(s?s:""),(s?": ":""),strerror(errno));
> So, using something like:
> perror(__FUNCTION__);
> of
> perror(NULL);
> is probably a good idea.
Not if you care
Am Samstag 19 August 2006 17:28 schrieb Steve Greenland:
> On 18-Aug-06, 16:48 (CDT), Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, %m is, according to printf(2) manpage:
> > m (Glibc extension.) Print output of strerror(errno). No argument
> > is required.
> >
> > So why isn't
> > pri
On 18-Aug-06, 16:48 (CDT), Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, %m is, according to printf(2) manpage:
> m (Glibc extension.) Print output of strerror(errno). No argument is
> required.
>
> So why isn't
> printf("%s\n",strerror(errno));
> used instead of
> printf("%m\n");
On 2006-08-19 02:47:55, Gabor Gombas wrote:
in current gcc versions, so the real-life answer is more like "you
can
assume C99 support on all archs".
Nice, thanks.
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen
Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael rasmussen cc
http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/pks/looku
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 12:52:17AM +0200, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
> Is there any written documentation on debian.org for support of c99 in
> the archs supported by debian?
Well, even the gcc-4.2 documentation still has the sentence "GCC has
incomplete support for this [C99] standard version",
On 2006-08-19 00:25:38, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Unless -std=c99 doesn't work on one of the Debian archs, certainly.
Great. Now added, and a nice warning free compilation as a result:-)
Is there any written documentation on debian.org for support of c99 in
the archs supported by debian?
--
pe, 2006-08-18 kello 23:44 +0200, Michael Rasmussen kirjoitti:
> So from what your a saying it would be allowed to add -std=c99 to gcc
> options? It would be nice since I will avoid these warnings using
> option -pedantic including warning against // before comments:-)
Unless -std=c99 doesn't
On 2006-08-18 23:48:02, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
So why isn't
printf("%s\n",strerror(errno));
used instead of
printf("%m\n");
?
Not like a problem in Debian GNU/* but you should tell upstream about
questionable coding style and portability.
I agree with you on this issue - I personally prefer
Am Freitag 18 August 2006 23:25 schrieb Michael Rasmussen:
> I have a package which relies on support for long long and using gcc
> does not give problems. The same goes for printf support of %m.
No, %m is, according to printf(2) manpage:
m (Glibc extension.) Print output of strerror(errno).
On 2006-08-18 23:36:50, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
C90 has been obsoleted by C99. The C implementation we have,
consisting
of gcc and glibc, support long long and %m (the latter being a GNU
extension, even, it seems).
So from what your a saying it would be allowed to add -std=c99 to gcc
options?
pe, 2006-08-18 kello 23:25 +0200, Michael Rasmussen kirjoitti:
> I have a package which relies on support for long long and using gcc
> does not give problems. The same goes for printf support of %m. What
> various me is that these features are not supported in ISO C90. My
> question is if th
Hi list,
I have a package which relies on support for long long and using gcc
does not give problems. The same goes for printf support of %m. What
various me is that these features are not supported in ISO C90. My
question is if this is problem in Debian and if so should I make some
check
16 matches
Mail list logo
