Jeroen Massar wrote:
I am compiling generally with: CFLAGS += -W -Wall -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Winline -Wbad-function-cast -fshort-enums -fstrict-aliasing -fno-common -Wno-packed -Wpadded -pedantic -Wall -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wswitch-default -Wformat=2 -Wformat-security -Wformat -Wmissing-format-attribute -D_REENTRANT -D_THREAD_SAFE -pipe -combine -Wunused -Winit-self -Wextra Adding "-pthread -Wno-variadic-macros" on some platforms and also the -m64 when the target is a 64bit platform, next to "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" to make everything (afaik, tips/comments welcome :) as much 64 bit as possible and getting as many warning as possible so that everything which seems a bit off will be caught. The annoying thing is though that I also get a lot of: warning: ISO C90 does not support the 'll' scanf length modifier warning: ISO C90 does not support the 'll' printf length modifier because of the -pedantic and -Wformat options. Now the question is, is there a way to let gcc ignore the above two warnings, thus in effect checking for ISO C90 + "ll" format? Or would the gcc developers accept a patch for such an option if it is not in there? Without those two warnings my app compiles clean, ripping those two warnings out though can't be accomplished with a simple grep and thus I think would require source changes.
I don't get the question. If ISO C90 doesn't mandate support for ll what's wrong with the warning?
More so, why are you hell-bent on conforming to C90 then requesting that it ignore standards violations?
Anyways, on a 64-bit platform %ld/%lu should print a 64-bit value since for most of these "long" is a native register size.
Tom
