From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6235 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: printf() less __assert_fail() Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:54:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20141001145424.GM23797@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412175284 29121 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2014 14:54:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:54:44 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6248-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Oct 01 16:54:37 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XZLIa-00029u-TU for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:54:37 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21960 invoked by uid 550); 1 Oct 2014 14:54:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 21952 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2014 14:54:36 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6235 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > It makes no sense to use printf() in this function. Is this a good idea? I'm not sure why it "makes no sense". There are a few minor differences in behavior with your version, the main ones I see being that yours is non-atomic but async-signal-safe. Are there major reasons you want to change it? Rich