--- Comment #21 from gustavodn at gmail dot com 2008-01-16 01:52 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Anyway, if you really want to believe that printf("%s\n",s) and puts(s) should
> not have the same effect for defined behaviour, then we will have to agree to
> disagre
--- Comment #19 from gustavodn at gmail dot com 2008-01-15 21:08 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> This will be fixed yesterday if printf("%s\n", s) were equivalent to puts(s)
> in
> glibc.
[+] The standard requires them to be equivalent? Per standard, they can'
--- Comment #16 from gustavodn at gmail dot com 2008-01-15 17:20 ---
"Glibc being Linux being the world" is not really relevant, IMHO. What is
relevant is printf() (or any function) is, fundamentally, implemented by
library, not by compiler, so compiler should not prevent li
