From owner-freebsd-audit Mon May 27 20:54:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE5837B407 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 20:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 6E36B5307; Tue, 28 May 2002 05:54:37 +0200 (CEST) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Dima Dorfman Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: %j for printf(9) References: <20020528001615.4BAC93E5E@turbine.trit.org> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 28 May 2002 05:54:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20020528001615.4BAC93E5E@turbine.trit.org> Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dima Dorfman writes: > I still like my restructure, but since other people don't seem to > share my opinion, I'm fine doing it another (your) way. That said, I > think your patch has some bugs that mine doesn't. For example, this: > > printf("%ld\n", -4); > > yields "4294967292" with your patch, but not with mine (mine, and > printf(3), yield "-4"). I think the attached patch (relative to > subr_prf.c *with* your patch applied) fixes it. Yep. Commit? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message