> 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
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.
Is it correct to just omit the parameter altogether and change output format?
Jaromir
Le dim. 6 sept. 2020 à 04:41, matthew green a écrit
