Date:Wed, 15 May 2024 02:33:23 +0300
From:Valery Ushakov
Message-ID:
| I vaguely remember I read somewhere that printf(1) was specifically
| conceived to take no options, but that can be planted memories. May
| be it's indeed induced by the old state of affair
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:22:25 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | Unfortunately that advice is not true without further caveats.
>
> That you have to actually write a valid printf(1) command, and not
> simply s/echo/printf/ ? Does that really need saying?
>
>
> | netbsd$ sh -c "printf '-V\n'"
Date:Tue, 14 May 2024 12:41:51 +0300
From:Valery Ushakov
Message-ID:
| Unfortunately that advice is not true without further caveats.
That you have to actually write a valid printf(1) command, and not
simply s/echo/printf/ ? Does that really need saying?
| n
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 01:32:25 +, David H. Gutteridge wrote:
> Log Message:
> echo.1: borrow advice about printf(1) from the OpenBSD man page
Unfortunately that advice is not true without further caveats.
netbsd$ sh -c "printf '-V\n'"
-V
$ busybox sh -c "printf '-V\n'"
-V
ubuntu$ $ dash
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 05:03:41 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:17:05 +0300
> From:Valery Ushakov
> Message-ID:
>
> | > in the sense that simply falling out of main() is exit(0)?
> |
> | Surprisingly - yes.
>
> That's appalling, but perha
Date:Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:17:05 +0300
From:Valery Ushakov
Message-ID:
| > in the sense that simply falling out of main() is exit(0)?
|
| Surprisingly - yes.
That's appalling, but perhaps not surprising.
It breaks code which believed what was promised, and did
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 17:35:45 +, Robert Elz wrote:
> And second, does C99 really promise:
> Remove unnecessary call to exit(0); returning from main is equivalent
> since C99.
> in the sense that simply falling out of main() is exit(0)?
Surprisingly - yes.
Derek M. Jones in his
