Hi Michael,
On 2020-09-11 11:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 9/10/20 11:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx>
---
man3/inet_net_pton.3 | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/man3/inet_net_pton.3 b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
index 00f94b9d4..d74a33d74 100644
--- a/man3/inet_net_pton.3
+++ b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ Raw address: c1a80180
/* Link with "\-lresolv" */
#include <arpa/inet.h>
+#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
@@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
may not have been touched by inet_net_ntop(), and so will still
have any initial value that was specified in argv[2]. */
- printf("Raw address: %x\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
+ printf("Raw address: %"PRIx32"\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
So, I'm in a little bit of doubt about patches 01 and 02. Does
this really win us anything? On the one hand, %"PRIx32" is more
difficult to read than %x. On the other, does it win us anything
in terms of portability? At first glance, the answers seems to me
to be "no". Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Michael
On 16-bit systems 'unsigned int' might be shorter than 'uint32_t'.
There it would make a difference, I guess.
Thanks,
Alex
