Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:13:51 +0200 From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: printf() less __assert_fail() 2014-10-01 16:54 GMT+02:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: > 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? Atomic version, yes, I thought about it. It's just an idea. This version gives a much smaller binary. Similar solutions (WSTR macro) you use in noxcuse for a small size. Daniel > Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.