> What's wrong with printf("%s", NULL)? It produces '(null)', and at > least it's visible something is missing there. I think gcc 9.3 is > overly eager for this.
our libc "(null)" is beyond standard, and while useful, the current result is UB from a standards POV. it's a nice thing in that broken code doesn't crash and you get a maybe OK result, but it's still bad code to rely upon this -- it indicates an assertable condition to me. > Is it correct to just omit the parameter altogether and change output format perhaps. do you have a better idea? "-"? thanks. .mrg. > Jaromir > > Le dim. 6 sept. 2020 =C3=A0 04:41, matthew green <m...@netbsd.org> > > > > Module Name: src > > Committed By: mrg > > Date: Sun Sep 6 02:34:03 UTC 2020 > > > > Modified Files: > > src/sbin/amrctl: amrctl.c > > > > Log Message: > > avoid calling printf() %s with NULL. > > > > > > To generate a diff of this commit: > > cvs rdiff -u -r1.11 -r1.12 src/sbin/amrctl/amrctl.c > > > > Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the > > copyright notices on the relevant files. > > >