[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPLrYETHF9PBcq9LWkvpHN7JGQ4-3W5o-XdTE4eM+oA0Bei4Eg@mail.gmail.com>
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.
