From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec 12 15:49:18 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51E616A41F
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:49:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFC643D45
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:49:18 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72269BC66;
	Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:43:33 +0100."
	<200512121643.39236.max@love2party.net> 
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:49:16 +0100
Message-ID: <2926.1134402556@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: printf behaviour with illegal or malformed format string 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:49:18 -0000

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.