On Friday 03 July 2015 19:28:26 David Holland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > >> Modified Files: > > >> src/usr.sbin/rtadvd: advcap.c if.c rrenum.c rtadvd.c > > >> > > >> Log Message: > > >> Use %m in syslog(3) instead of %s strerror(3). > > > > > > Was this really necessary? Last I remember we considered %m a legacy > > > mistake and preferred to avoid it. > > > > It made the program smaller, which is a good thing. > > There is no mention of syslog %m being considered a legacy mistake > > in the man page. Maybe you have a link to any discussion of this? > > I'm not sure I'm going to be able to find it readily. Searching for %m > doesn't work real well, even with grep. > > however, here's what it's about. %m is a wart: since it's not part of > printf, it means you can't use printf to implement syslog(3), at least > not without adding a bunch of gross hacks.
This I do agree with after implementing a syslog wrapper in dhcpcd. > Or alternatively (like the > gnu folks do) you can quietly add %m support to printf, which is > pretty gross as well. I'm on the fence about that. I dislike it's not standard (but hey, we have our own non standard stuff too!) but is is convenient. But aside from not being a standard, but is wrong with %m in printf? > There is no real reason %m is necessary and we were at least > discussing deprecating it; I don't think anything formal came of that > but still it's probably better not to add new uses of it. > > anyone else remember? Christos? Is it necessary? No it's not. However it *is* a convenience, saves code size and is an accepted standard http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/closelog.html Roy
