On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 10:00:13AM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> On Jun 20, 2005, at 9:11 PM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> >The problem though is that thanks to gcc, how puts() behaves is how
> >printf() behaves some of the time. So printf() no longer has its
> >historical behavior.
> 
> So what?  It wasn't documented behavior, so anyone who depends on it  
> is being foolish anyway.
> 

That should only be true when gcc provides the complete implementation. It's
clear this isn't true here. Libc is provided from something else, yet gcc
is deciding "it's knows best" and substituting it's own rules in between.

Basically according to the logic above any stdc89/99 defined function cannot
have any extentions without the user using -ffreestanding. BEcause otherwise
gcc (from what you say) could just completely inline libc from it's own 
implementation and by god...assuming it actually used the one installed on
my system is my own fault for assuming something so likely....

James