[patch] printf "%p" gdb internal error fix

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:40:02 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > > Can't we describe it as a mostly complete C89 printf instead of a
> > > mostly incomplete C99 printf?
> > 
> > I don't think it's right to ask our readers to be familiar with the
> > history of the C standards.  That is why I didn't even mention C99 (or
> > any other standard).
> 
> I don't think it's right to have it both ways.

Yes, there's no single way that is right here.  I've chosen to talk
vaguely about a "C standard" because saying something precise would be
very hard without going into a lot of detail.  And I used C99
(implicitly) as the baseline because I believe more and more C
programmers regard it as _the_ standard as time passes.