Original printed more useful information.
I am aware of the desire to get some data for easier program debugging conveniently.
Just dropping it in sake of "correctness" is wrong.
I have got an opposite opinion. I am curious if more software developers would like to care for complete async-signal-safety.
You'll have to come up with something that prints the same
This will not happen at the moment because of conflicting expectations.
or don't touch it.
I assume that the involved implementation details will be reconsidered some day in the future.
Regards, Markus
Don't CC wine-patches.
Markus Elfring wrote:
Original printed more useful information. Just dropping it in sake of "correctness" is wrong. You'll have to come up with something that prints the same or don't touch it.
I am aware of the desire to get some data for easier program debugging conveniently. I have got an opposite opinion. I am curious if more software developers would like to care for complete async-signal-safety. This will not happen at the moment because of conflicting expectations. I assume that the involved implementation details will be reconsidered some day in the future.
So basically you saying: ---------- I don't care what you had in there, and I don't care how useful that information was to you. I care about some highly hypothetical error cases that might never happen in your program but just because theoretically they can happen I'll remove some code that looks wrong.
And don't ask me to actually think about what I'm doing, it's too hard to figure out how to print a string and a number without using printf(). So I'll leave that to you to code. -----------
No wonder you receive such a "welcome" from other projects you've tried to "improve" before.
Vitaliy.
-
Markus Elfring -
Vitaliy Margolen