The following reply was made to PR port-xen/29887; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
Cc: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org, port-xen-maintainer@netbsd.org,
	gnats-admin@netbsd.org, netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org,
	tech-userlevel@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:05:08 -0400

 On Jun 17, 12:56am, yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
 -- Subject: Re: port-xen/29887: sysctl kern.consdev coredumps
 
 | if no one objects, i will:
 | 
 | 	- add some note to printf(3) to discourage the use of "(null)".
 | 	- remove code to produce the "(null)" from wprintf and friends.
 
 This has been historical practice since the mid 80's. People expect *printf(3)
 to print (null) when you pass it a null string. It is a lot better to print
 (null) than to core-dump... Trust me, I remember how it was back then.
 
 | 	- and disable the optimization in in-tree gcc.
 
 This will just muddle the waters even further. Imagine when a poor
 sod compiles a new version of gcc and some code randomly core-dumps
 with the new gcc where it works with the in-tree gcc. I.e. "Our"
 gcc will be different than the rest of the world. I may disagree
 with the optimization, but this is the de-facto gcc behavior.
 
 In short, I oppose all three changes. I still think that changing
 puts and fputs to behave like printf() is a saner choice. I would
 prefer if core voted for it, and since I am in core, I will abstain
 from this one.
 
 christos