Re: [PATCH 1/6] Fix some "printf format" warnings.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mar 14, 2007, 23:41 UTC
Message-ID: <7vd53b5r5r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <45F87DC7.7020503@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>

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

>>> printf("%s%06"PRIo32" %s %d\t", tag, ntohl(ce->ce_mode), ...)
>>>
>>> that's the correct and allegedly portable way I guess.

I do not think this is really worth it.

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

is perfectly readable for even old timers about git, as long as they know traditional C and what ntohl() is. And ce->ce_mode even fits in 16-bit, so while we are _not_ supporting platforms whose unsigned int is 16-bit, the above cast is not losing any useful precision either.

> (the symbols being: uint32_t, uint64_t, uint16_t, uintmax_t)

I think we would want these exact-sized integer types, so if they are missing the platform ports may want to supply their own substitute.