From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B52521556 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:01:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 19520 invoked by uid 550); 13 Jun 2024 15:01:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 32415 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2024 14:52:07 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.at; s=s31663417; t=1718290319; x=1718895119; i=hombre67@gmx.at; bh=oO9UWQoNvV/2wRfgspUzQUsyJ3v/sQOEXmpAaUNEnTU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:MIME-Version:Message-ID:From:To:Subject: Content-Type:Date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date: from:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=Eu0ZWzrGBupZMnzePkRiV7f6CkcapFHINHJNBUy3QL5yK5dDCm3UbcQgO9epcaer sWlWEvTYh4+t/pGwj0BGqQgdybct0/cG7RAklC68QIP1L6pIHUvf59niK/2E+qJ0Q E6bjTuQWinhkNOPefdF50wYXGXa9k7iUjuQ6x81oHKApxXTWueaOyqSzIFC9rJ/Cm sPRb8S70Vr4wlAb2vR0znuaQ3cfnWYRE7O0fnyvrV5E1j+fM6/922lLtYDPkMGfDm z9T9CXMDg4MWfB9DlXPS0Ka20apf7kUL23C21nBe60VZessjzgjMqB45zqbw6Bg/g 4MQ0Cnm5pcH860+faw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: erny hombre To: musl@lists.openwall.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:51:59 +0200 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:sHBrQKyPbrwZvKHTSxc/tnyuNUPOKeTMkCDZM7grI59Bgj+QQOdDAbgEAMCt8YeTwOZLm GFs399NSwsDZCf/iL+0ev7ZANVOSKk0+a6lgDftZFFwpR1K05XO7Hzr7QlaTf5+2dIvhZR0WFoFd n3DJQXrhTwN0mRuRQLdN0l4g3R8oMB1wqA0pV5+tLtM1844DXOriH/cqDMip9RSkKKe6rkWMnZK8 NvFjsy8tg/ND8z0Qx2ZGXHSjDnNWj8LhXr2SNJwNgntMjQ3At+mwgO/aFiMalAVavnHaWiy7a6uH 1c= UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:ZiBg+RHFHgk=;66XthyGHctNBcgry5HzGrD9Y0Ro D/YxGfmavar0x2PYomJFWQiMQQGQHRIBb/jEn5md46knXKOKBZPc0oxOCnPJYVr6QjkAuGAIu x0wkQ3iuvSV7H0v2ViREy3wrC9lt0XtxxSn/f3jPO9HNWryyDPVGOjiCIUDuxr8Lg7ffk/zJi C4R2egKEhj/jeAVLPoKGlLUromE4V3FQH24TZUYppQ9qiAQuNbOFDzuwtENKXMJzKf5Fg2Hm7 4vwsFPNil4IMMDhupKKGKkbCPRld8jSL6/8vG/zW2XSr+rE6Er516RB1JeHwhAfcUJNvLll3y yyTX30ragpo5GZihcj1chYXiyVWA2ASLHz1QAXhoxLzZArWXpgEj6B+ILdauU+9WhIo6180oU tBsqpAZgX5qB/YcvaL8N5m78creJQizQQT0XboH4AT8ClL6Ifb4MVu7px2m6gnUBQEvvtSyrY 8oopTLk/rwlla/Ly89YnWDgbqOLJCci8vw5JdsNLUEik7LqAyWj8oahAv2QThA0meYk2IHv4m 0sMAfIxTOCBr4Rpqm+fK40wXzloEZ6Pv57HaUAwS+VGv+hq2z+B4Wf9D4qexZHSTGqpxhfd3U qZgXazZvHesAoeVCQR584Z5s2SK85xKbMlXxf8vtUU4u1jIeu97WgF0il8T3A4ejXZCk+VphU wZMcLEO5nCzzSaC27g09NTtT3VSgU1DG0s1ju5N6fBzmUS6h8ibgW1VjBeOT17E= Subject: [musl] Re: possible bug in syslog Hello, Rich wrote: > This assertion itself is not valid; the whole reason a LOG_MAKEPRI macro exists is that it's not guaranteed that the packing be simple or. Here (https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/functions/syslog.html) I found this: Values of the priority argument are formed by OR'ing together a severity-level value and an optional facility value. So I think a simple or should be correct. Regards Erwin