On 26/03/18 18:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ void jw_object_uint64(struct json_writer *jw, const char *key, uint64_t value) >>>> maybe_add_comma(jw); >>>> >>>> append_quoted_string(&jw->json, key); >>>> - strbuf_addf(&jw->json, ":%"PRIuMAX, value); >>>> + strbuf_addf(&jw->json, ":%"PRIu64, value); >>> >>> In this code-base, that would normally be written as: >>> >>> strbuf_addf(&jw->json, ":%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t) value); >> >> heh, I should learn not to reply in a hurry, just before >> going out ... >> >> I had not noticed that 'value' was declared with an 'sized type' >> of uint64_t, so using PRIu64 should be fine. > > But why is this codepath using a sized type in the first place? It > is not like it wants to read/write a fixed binary file format---it > just wants to use an integer type that is wide enough to handle any > inttype the platform uses, for which uintmax_t would be a more > appropriate type, no? I must confess to not having given any thought to the wider implications of the code. I don't really know what this code is going to be used for. [Although I did shudder when I read some mention of a 'universal interchange format' - I still have nightmares about XML :-D ] ATB, Ramsay Jones
