On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:34:09AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > Theo Buehler(t...@theobuehler.org) on 2023.10.17 09:13:15 +0200:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:19:17PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > > I dislike how log.c do
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Theo Buehler(t...@theobuehler.org) on 2023.10.17 09:13:15 +0200:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:19:17PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > I dislike how log.c does all these asprintf() calls with dubious
> > > workaround calls in ca
Theo Buehler(t...@theobuehler.org) on 2023.10.17 09:13:15 +0200:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:19:17PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > I dislike how log.c does all these asprintf() calls with dubious
> > workaround calls in case asprintf() fails.
>
> You're not alone.
>
> > IMO it is easier to use
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:19:17PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> I dislike how log.c does all these asprintf() calls with dubious
> workaround calls in case asprintf() fails.
You're not alone.
> IMO it is easier to use the stdio provided buffers and fflush() to get
> "atomic" writes on stderr. At