Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:49:16 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: printf behaviour with illegal or malformed format string Message-ID: <2926.1134402556@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:33 %2B0100." <200512121643.39236.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200512121643.39236.max@love2party.net>, Max Laier writes:
>I agree on principle but would like to ask if we need to revisit some of the
>error cases. Especially with regard to 64bit porting there are some
>"artifacts" that might cause serious pain for ported applications if the
>above is adopted.
>
>Specifically, right now the following will warn "long long int format, int64_t
>arg (arg 2)" on our 64bit architectures while it is required on - at least i386
>
> int64_t i = 1;
> printf("%lld", i);
You misunderstood me.
"%lld" is a legal formatting string, my printf implementation would never
object to that.
I'm talking about illegal/non-sensical formatting strings like "%lhd" or
even "%!!!!d" and similar.
The issue you raise is valid and important, but it is not for this bikeshed ;-)
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2926.1134402556>