16:38:18 <rzezeski> Is there a reason we don't support the alternate form (#) flag in kernel printf?
17:16:59 <rmustacc> rzezeski: No particular reason. Probably just need.
17:17:12 <rmustacc> We can add it and teach gcc about the support for it.
17:23:01 <rzezeski> k, I ask because the Chelsio common code uses it in some places. I can just update those places for now, but would be nice to have that support. I'll create an issue.
17:28:34 <rzezeski> fenix illumos#17614
17:28:35 <fenix> FEATURE 17614: add support for alternate form flag in kernel printf (New)
17:28:35 <fenix> ↳ https://www.illumos.org/issues/17614
19:26:00 <richlowe> #17586 (fenix?) is another similar case that bit me recently
19:26:01 <fenix> FEATURE 17586: mdb_printf should support %z (New)
19:26:02 <fenix> ↳ https://www.illumos.org/issues/17586
19:26:10 <richlowe> if someone brave wanted to commonize our doprnts 
21:58:23 <jbk> i have a from scratch *printf implementation.. though it doesn't support the i18n bits
21:58:34 <jbk> i ended up writing it for some UEFI stuff
21:59:26 <jbk> but i borrowed the idea (definitely not the code) from ast where there's a struct that represents a conversion specification
21:59:38 <jbk> so each one gets parsed, then the struct is used to do the work
21:59:57 <jbk> it made it cleaner and easier to follow (IMO at least)
22:08:41 <rmustacc> Just make sure there's ample test suite investment here given the high blast radius.