David Laight wrote:
> +static struct mi {
> +	int	errno;
> +	char	*msg;

const pls.

> +strerror(int err)
>  {
> -static	char ebuf[64];
> +	static	char ebuf[] = "Unknown error: code 999";
> +	struct mi *mi;
> ...
> +	snprintf(ebuf + sizeof ebuf - 4, 3, "%d", err);
> +	return ebuf;
>  }

For readability reasons, I'd prefer something similar to what
was there before (with the buffer size smaller of course), like:

	static char ebuf[24];	/* must be enough to hold 'Unknown error' */
	...
	snprintf(ebuf, sizeof(ebuf), "Unknown error: code %d", err);

Otherwise looks good :) This should give back at least those 40B.

How much space is saved by this? When I did similar stuff
in past, I found that replacing switch() or couple if's with 
array+for(;;) actually increased code size in some cases.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-