>[..] >> >> Okay, then we can't use %09pK. I've just wondered because %9pK works. > >This is not per printk / kernel, Wformat warnings come from the >compiler. > >Per C11 (7.21.6 6): > 0 For d, i, o, u, x, X, a, A, e, E, f, F, g, and G conversions, leading zeros > (following any indication of sign or base) are used to pad to the field width > rather than performing space padding > ... > For other conversions, the behavior is undefined. > >So using 0 for p should trigger an undefined behavior as far as the >standard C concerned. Unless I'm missing something. Thank your for the information about the leading 0 case. By the way do you know if there is policy for none 0 digit like %9pK? Jaewon Kim
