freebsd

Most of the standard C library implementations, including FreeBSD's libc [0] and glibc [1] have sscanf implemented like that, by calling fscanf on a dummy FILE object (with its size populated by strlen() at every call, no caching). Of course, there are implementations whose authors thought about that and decided to do the reasonable thing instead, e.g. musl [2] and Plauger's old stdlib [3]. [0] https://github.com/lattera/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/stdi... [1] https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/dff8da6b3e89b986bb7f6b1... , https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/dff8da6b3e89b986bb7f6b1... , https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/dff8da6b3e89b986bb7f6b1... — two additional files and five times as much code compared to FreeBSD's implementation for pretty much the same functionality, wow. [2] https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/stdio/

FreeBSD’s config files spring to mind. Here is an example: https://github.com/lattera/freebsd/blob/master/etc/defaults/... Also relevant is this quote from john romero, id’s co-founder: “Bulletproof your engine by providing defaults upon load failure.” https://www.mcvuk.com/development-news/john-romeros-secrets-...

As far as the formatting part is concerned, if you just want to look at an implementation, FreeBSD's is extremely nice and readable: https://github.com/lattera/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/stdi... For FRRouting, we decided we want to use Linux kernel style extensions (like "%pI4"), so to get this in a portable way we imported FreeBSD's printf into our code. Since printf() isn't exactly "hot" code getting changed a lot, we considered the maintenance / duplication cost acceptable. You can see the result here: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/tree/master/lib/printf http://docs.frrouting.org/projects/dev-guide/en/latest/loggi... stdio support is completely gone in our copy, WCHAR_SUPPORT is disabled at compile time, locale support is stubbed out/hardcoded to C locale. None of these matter to us. As a result, we can use this printf even in

Pretty sure that isn't true of FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD. It most certainly wasn't true of any Unix. They all have files that end up as /usr/include/sys/syscall.h and define well-known numerical constants for each (documented!) system call. https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/sys/syscall.h https://github.com/lattera/freebsd/blob/master/sys/sys/sysca... http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/syscall.h?re... Oh, look! They even share the exact same numerical values for the old school system calls. #1 is exit(), #2 is fork(), so on and so forth. Gosh, on my linux laptop, here in /usr/include/asm/unistd_64.h is pretty much the same numbers, but objectively hidden a little bit more than in the direct Unix descendants. I interpret this as "less documented than in Unixes". Wow, even Minix source code has the same numbers: ht