2025-02-07 22:27 UTC+0800 ~ Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@xxxxxxx> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:22:19PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote: >> On 07/02/2025 12:37, Jiayuan Chen wrote: >>> Fixed some incorrect formatting specifiers that were exposed when I added >>> the "-Wformat" flag to the compiler options. >>> >>> This patch doesn't include "-Wformat" in the Makefile for now, as I've >>> only addressed some obvious semantic issues with the compiler warnings. >>> There are still other warnings that need to be tackled. >>> >>> For example, there's an ifindex that's sometimes defined as a signed type >>> and sometimes as an unsigned type, which makes formatting a real pain >>> - sometimes it needs %d and sometimes %u. This might require a more >>> fundamental fix from the variable definition side. >>> >>> If the maintainer is okay with adding "-Wformat" to the >>> tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile, please let us know, and we can follow up with >>> further fixes. >> >> No objection from the maintainer, thanks for looking into this. Did you >> catch these issues with just "-Wformat"? I'm asking because I need to >> use an additional flag, "-Wformat-signedness", to have my compiler >> display the %d/%u reports. >> >> Thanks, >> Quentin > Yes, I previously added '-Wformat -Wformat-signedness', but I just tried > again and it turns out that only '-Wformat-signedness' takes effect. I rememeber now that -Wformat is already included in bpftool's Makefile via tools/scripts/Makefile.include (variable $(EXTRA_WARNINGS)), so it wouldn't make a difference anyway whether you add it again in bpftool's Makefile or not.
