Re: [PATCH] docs: add extra integer types to printk-formats

[Joe Perches]

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