Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:11:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: lp64 vs lp32 printf Message-ID: <15780.28996.936657.152472@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021009140419.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <15780.26700.615985.133379@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.20021009140419.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin writes: > > On 09-Oct-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > 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? > > We should be able to change the kernel %z to some other weird letter. Sure.. but do you know where in the sources %z is defined to be something weird? 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?15780.28996.936657.152472>