theo borm wrote:
> Two of the three modifications were printf's with more arguments than
> there were in the format specification, the third was a zero length format
> specification. (see below for details).

There are indeed incorrect. Too bad gcc 2.95 didn't warn about
too many args to printf-like functions - nice to see this fixed in 3.x.

I'll take care to commit fixes to these.

Jaromir

> I'm not sure what the functions do or why they should call printf with such
> odd arguments. It makes me wonder whether the kernel sources should be
> fixed rather than the compiler?
> 
> I look forward to 3.3 in a future release, but needed some of the 3-series
> features right now. It was curiosity that prompted me to give the kernel
> sources a try, and was pleasantly surprised. I have understood that others
> have been successfully using 3.2.2 to (cross-) compile kernels for some
> time now, and that it's user land that is giving (linking) trouble.
> 
> with kind regards,
-- 
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.''     -=-