On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Michael Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 2:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>> No, not every libc. I would not have spent the time and effort to develop
>> the patch, contribute it, rework it and contribute a second iteration if
>> it was not for a good reason now, would I.
>>
>
> I believe his point is that your patch adds size to busybox which is
> unneeded for most users. (btw, it's recommended to post bloatcheck numbers
> with a patch. If you show a small number from bloatcheck then there is less
> to argue about)
>
> Which libc are you using? Do you think %m support could be checked with an
> ifdef?
>
How about wrapping the printf("%m") uses within the __GNU_LIBRARY__ macro?
It seems that %m support has been there from the beginning of glibc.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
