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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
>
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
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 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
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
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
... 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
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 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
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
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
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:
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:
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:
> >
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:
>>
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
26 matches
Mail list logo