Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:33:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lp64 vs lp32 printf Message-ID: <15780.26700.615985.133379@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20021009173106.9D1862A88D@canning.wemm.org> References: <20021009161756.E4040-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20021009173106.9D1862A88D@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm writes: > > > > Um, using intmax_t to print size_t's would be incorrect, since it is > > signed. Using uintmax_t would be bloat. Very few typedefed types > > need the full bloat of [u]intmax_t, and size_t is unlikely to become > > one of them before casting it to uintmax_t to print it becomes a style > > bug in the kernel too (when %z is implemented). > > Bring it on! The sooner %z gets here the better. The only problem is that > gcc has been taught that %z means something different in the kernel. :-( Where is gcc taught these things? Can we update it? Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15780.26700.615985.133379>