From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:53:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Fix some "printf format" warnings.
Message-ID: <7v4pp29eok.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <45E9BE46.1020801@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>

Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
> ---
>
> It's interesting to note that all of the warnings are caused by mismatching
> parameter expression involving a call to ntohl().
> [OK, it wasn't that interesting ;-)]
> diff --git a/builtin-ls-files.c b/builtin-ls-files.c
> index ac89eb2..5c990a5 100644
> --- a/builtin-ls-files.c
> +++ b/builtin-ls-files.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static void show_ce_entry(const char *tag, struct cache_entry *ce)
>  		putchar(line_terminator);
>  	}
>  	else {
> -		printf("%s%06o %s %d\t",
> +		printf("%s%06lo %s %d\t",
>  		       tag,
>  		       ntohl(ce->ce_mode),
>  		       abbrev ? find_unique_abbrev(ce->sha1,abbrev)

I think the issue is ntohl() returns uint32_t, and this did not
surface as an issue so far only because that type happens to be
defined as 'unsigned int' on many systems.  Changing %o to %lo
is shifting the breakage to other systems, isn't it?

I think we should do this instead:

	printf("%s%06o %s %d\t", tag, (unsigned) ntohl(ce->ce_mode), ...