In article <20150703192826.ga27...@netbsd.org>, David Holland <dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org> wrote: > >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. Or alternatively (like the >gnu folks do) you can quietly add %m support to printf, which is >pretty gross as well. > >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?
I remember the discussion about %m supported by the glibc printf, and if we should be adding it or not. The consensus IIRC was not, and that it is probably a good idea to avoid it in general so that message format strings are not "special". But we did not go as far to forbid it or to recommend code not to use it. christos
