On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:59 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:36:47PM +0000, Louis Taylor wrote: > > > A few commonly used integer types were absent from this table, so add > > > them. > > > > I'm not against the patch, but isn't obvious by reading POSIX and / or man > > printf(3)? > > You'd think; but based on the sheer number of -Wformat warnings > (~450), I'm not so sure. <shrug> software defects are always present. Many of the -Wformat warnings are bogus too. There's nothing wrong with using %x for a unsigned int of less than long size. (u8/u16) > At least with this patch they're "above the > fold." I'd personally go with "posix plus kernel specific deletions and extensions" > The kernel also has its own format flag extensions, and does not > implement %n (for good reason), so it's better to be explicit than > imply posix or glibc compat. %i is also supported and used a few hundred times
