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

[Randy Dunlap]

On 3/5/19 11:59 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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"

Yeah, I don't think that all of the "standard" types/formats need
to be in there.  Just the differences.

>> 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
> 
> 


-- 
~Randy