From owner-freebsd-audit Tue Dec 4 5:41:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D502837B41B; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 4 Dec 2001 13:41:10 +0000 (GMT) To: Mike Barcroft Cc: audit@freebsd.org, markm@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans Subject: Re: Warns for tcopy and wc. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:54:52 EST." <20011203215452.E57237@espresso.q9media.com> X-Request-Do: Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:41:07 +0000 From: David Malone Message-ID: <200112041341.aa05762@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:51:25PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: bde> %ll should not be used to print typedefed types after this. mike> Consider using intmax_t and the printf(3) modifier %j (or the unsigned mike> variant). I presume casting to intmax_t will be the oficially blessed way of printing typedefed things now? If so we should make gcc's format warning code understand the %j modifier - maybe I should look into that (or maybe some of the FreeBSD standards people are doing that?). Is it apropriate to use intmax_t where you want to count something big? For example, would it be OK to change wc and tcopy to use intmax_t instead of the int64_t and quad_t which they currently use? David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message