Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:05:27 +0100 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@ixsystems.com>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/security/audit audit_arg.c Message-ID: <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> (Max Laier's message of "Sat, 4 Feb 2006 01:11:03 %2B0100") References: <200602032350.k13NoQ1c047653@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060203155613.J41267@knight.iXsystems.com> <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Max Laier <max@love2party.net> writes:
> As this is somewhat vendor code, I think u_int64_t is okay.
On the contrary; u_int*_t is an old BSDism (which we accept for
historical reasons), while uint64_t is the correct C99 syntax.
> As for %ju, I think it's stupid. I even believe that %llu shouldn't
> raise an error when printing unsigned integers with sizeof(arg_type)
> =3D=3D sizeof(long long) - this should be possible as a compile time
> assert in whatever code is responsible for this.
The C Standard respectfully disagrees.
> We are seeing this type of porting problem over and over again,
> there should be a better sollution.
There is in C99: printf("%" PRIu64 "\n", foo);
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86u0bf9q3c.fsf>