On 22 Dec 2016, at 23:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> I think it is pretty clear that there are too many people requesting the
> revert
> for the revert not to be done.
Even if this feature is desired, the implementation in the patch is broken and
should be reverted until a correct implement
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:02:12PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:04:31PM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Chadd
> > wrote:
> > > Here's my reason for removal.
>
> > > Plenty of us are looking to be able to build bits of the BSD s
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:04:31PM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Here's my reason for removal.
> > Plenty of us are looking to be able to build bits of the BSD source
> > tree as part of other non FreeBSD systems, especially if they're
> > i
On 20/12/2016 18:50, Conrad Meyer wrote:
I didn't get the same conclusion from the thread — I haven't seen a
persuasive argument for removal.
Best,
Conrad
It's not standard or even a GNU extension (which we sometimes carry for
compatibility). We don't want to encourage it's use either so it
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Here's my reason for removal.
>>
>> Plenty of us are looking to be able to build bits of the BSD source
>> tree as part of other non FreeBSD systems, especially if they're
Hi Adrian,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Here's my reason for removal.
>
> Plenty of us are looking to be able to build bits of the BSD source
> tree as part of other non FreeBSD systems, especially if they're
> involved in bootstrapping.
Understood, however:
> That mea
Hi,
Here's my reason for removal.
Plenty of us are looking to be able to build bits of the BSD source
tree as part of other non FreeBSD systems, especially if they're
involved in bootstrapping. That means that it needs to be compilable
by a non-FreeBSD-modified compiler. Ideally this means we'd s
On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 15:50 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> I didn't get the same conclusion from the thread — I haven't seen a
> persuasive argument for removal.
>
> Best,
> Conrad
>
You're kidding, right? Can you cite even a single message that
supports the change? My memory is that everyone wh
I didn't get the same conclusion from the thread — I haven't seen a
persuasive argument for removal.
Best,
Conrad
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> [snip]
>
> tl;dr - can we revert it from stdio for now so we don't end up having
> people use this?
>
>
>
> -adrian
___
On Monday, December 19, 2016 02:23:08 PM Adrian Chadd wrote:
> [snip]
>
> tl;dr - can we revert it from stdio for now so we don't end up having
> people use this?
I agree with that. I think in userland something like snprintb() is ok.
In the kernel I'd rather keep '%b'.
--
John Baldwin
___
[snip]
tl;dr - can we revert it from stdio for now so we don't end up having
people use this?
-adrian
___
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsu
On Friday, December 16, 2016 07:31:28 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 17:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 16, 2016 04:53:04 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/2016 16:45, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, Dec
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 17 Dec 2016, at 12:46, David Chisnall wrote:
On 16 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Other than that, it makes more difficult to use vanilla gcc with out userland.
and it is adding more complexity to be able to build freebsd from a
On 17 Dec 2016, at 12:46, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>
>> Other than that, it makes more difficult to use vanilla gcc with out
>> userland.
>> and it is adding more complexity to be able to build freebsd from a non
>> freebsd
>> system which
On 16 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> Other than that, it makes more difficult to use vanilla gcc with out userland.
> and it is adding more complexity to be able to build freebsd from a non
> freebsd
> system which some people are working on.
Why? You’ll get some spurious wa
... just have printf_freebsd in libutil; have it know about our
extended fmt types.
then we just have to port libutil to a target platform.
-a
On 16 December 2016 at 17:31, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 17:44, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On 12/16/2016 17:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, December 16, 2016 04:53:04 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2016 16:45, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 08:53:26 PM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2016, at
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 04:53:04 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>> On 12/16/2016 16:45, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 08:53:26 PM Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> >> On 16 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> >>>
>>
On Friday, December 16, 2016 04:53:04 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 16:45, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 08:53:26 PM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >> On 16 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meye
On 12/16/2016 16:45, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 08:53:26 PM Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
Author: cem
Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
New Re
On Friday, December 16, 2016 08:53:26 PM Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
> >> Author: cem
> >> Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
> >> New Revision: 310138
> >> URL: https://svnweb.fre
On 12/16/2016 14:07, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 20:31 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
>>>
>>> Author: cem
>>> Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
>>> New Revision: 310138
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/bas
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 20:31 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Author: cem
> > Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
> > New Revision: 310138
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310138
> >
> > Log:
> > vfprintf(3):
On 16 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
>> Author: cem
>> Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
>> New Revision: 310138
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310138
>>
>> Log:
>> vfprintf(3): Add support for k
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:51AM +, Conrad E. Meyer wrote:
> Author: cem
> Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
> New Revision: 310138
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310138
>
> Log:
> vfprintf(3): Add support for kernel %b format
>
> This is a direct port of the kernel %b
Author: cem
Date: Fri Dec 16 01:44:50 2016
New Revision: 310138
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/310138
Log:
vfprintf(3): Add support for kernel %b format
This is a direct port of the kernel %b format.
I'm unclear on if (more) non-portable printf extensions will be a
pr
26 matches
Mail list logo