Date: 31 May 2002 18:57:46 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>, <audit@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: %j for printf(9) Message-ID: <xzpptzc8dbp.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20020531205803.L32389-100000@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20020531205803.L32389-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > I don't remember all the context for this. Is everything restructured so > that all the va_arg()'s for fetching integers are in the above patch? Yes. > If so, consider the following further restructurings: > > - merge fetch_nosign with nosign (rename it to something like > handle_unsigned) and use it handle all the unsigned cases that are now > handled by fetch_number. > - rename fetch_number to handle_signed and use it for only the signed cases > (%d and %+z). These two would actually increase code duplication. > - don't bother explicitly casting to uintmax_t for the signed cases. In > -current, these casts are used for %+z but not for %d. OK. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpptzc8dbp.fsf>