[PATCH] ash: avoid GLIBC'ism %m

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jody Bruchon <jody at jodybruchon.com> wrote:
>> > On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe <nietzsche at lysator.liu.se>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated
>> >>> '%a’. However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can
>> >>> be built without support for it.
>> >>
>> >> How come %m is POSIX when I didn't see any mention of it in this page?
>> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fprintf.html
>> >
>> > It does not appear to be part of POSIX or the Single UNIX Specification. The
>> > glibc man page (as of 2016-12-12) even indicates that it is a glibc-specific
>> > extension:
>> >
>> > *m *(Glibc extension; supported by uClibc and musl.) Print output of
>> > /strerror(errno)/. No argument is required.
>>
>> This sounds like every libc has already conceded to implementing it.
>>
>> Let's benefit from it then?
>
> No, not every libc. I would not have spent the time and effort to develop
> the patch, contribute it, rework it and contribute a second iteration if
> it was not for a good reason now, would I.

Good point.
What libc is that?