[PATCH] ash: avoid GLIBC'ism %m

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Denys Vlasenko
<vda.linux at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Ping?