Hello, On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:51:12AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Barry deFreese, le Sat 28 Oct 2006 20:48:17 -0400, a écrit : > > > The %p one is even a bit of a question. I believe %p is correct > > > but I also dropped the 0x and maybe I shouldn't have? > > > > You shouldn't indeed. Some tools may depend on being able to parse > > this. > > The glibc version of printf automatically adds 0x (for non-zero > values) when using %p. (i.e. it is equivalent to %#x.) Stesie's
Concerning glibc you're right. However Linux's printk, which in turn uses vsnprintf from lib/vsnprintf.c, doesn't automatically prepend the `0x'. Furthermore all users of `%p' format below linux/ in GNU Mach's source tree have (well, had) the `0x' prepended. > version doesn't seem to follow that, if I'm reading the code > correctly... An issue that should be fixed, IMHO. I don't think it's a good idea to remove all the `0x' just to be compatible with glibc's vsnprintf function and breaking with Linux on the other hand, thus making it harder to pull in further source files from there. Therefore I vote to not change this. cheers, stesie _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
