From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 4 14:05:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A713716A420; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:05:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2860843D45; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:05:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48AC2085; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:05:27 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -3.1/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on tim.des.no Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1702080; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:05:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BC99633C22; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:05:27 +0100 (CET) To: Max Laier References: <200602032350.k13NoQ1c047653@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060203155613.J41267@knight.iXsystems.com> <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:05:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> (Max Laier's message of "Sat, 4 Feb 2006 01:11:03 +0100") Message-ID: <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Devon H. O'Dell" , cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/security/audit audit_arg.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:05:35 -0000 Max Laier writes: > As this is somewhat vendor code, I think u_int64_t is okay. On the contrary; u_int*_t is an old BSDism (which we accept for historical reasons), while uint64_t is the correct C99 syntax. > As for %ju, I think it's stupid. I even believe that %llu shouldn't > raise an error when printing unsigned integers with sizeof(arg_type) > =3D=3D sizeof(long long) - this should be possible as a compile time > assert in whatever code is responsible for this. The C Standard respectfully disagrees. > We are seeing this type of porting problem over and over again, > there should be a better sollution. There is in C99: printf("%" PRIu64 "\n", foo); DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no