On 11/26/2017 02:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Heinrich, > > In message <3e2e7f27-2fb6-97ad-bbab-f014b7ef6...@gmx.de> you wrote: >> >> You are absolutely right. The C standard defines printf as returning a >> negative number if an error arises. > > This is what we (what to) have in U-Boot, too. > >> set_config_filename, dbg_snprintf_key(), bootstage_mark_code() - to name >> a few - will access illegal memory addresses. > > In this case you have identified a number of bugs, that need fixing. > >> As long as we cannot assure that each and every caller of a printf >> function handles negative return values correctly the only safe handling >> of errors is to return 0 or panic(). > > Come on, be serious. Of course we MUST assume that all callaers of > a function behave according o the specs. If they don;t then need > fixing. But you must NEVEr change behaviour of any code to deviate > from the spec and documention just because you fear thay you lose > bug compatibility. That would be crazy. > > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > Hello Wolfgang,
to cut it short, would you prefer https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/840912/ or https://github.com/xypron/u-boot-odroid-c2/blob/qemu-x86_64/patch/0001-vsprintf.c-add-EFI-device-path-printing.patch Best regards Heinrich _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
