On 8 Jan 2021, at 23:53, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> wrote: > > In message <CAKAYmMLD5F7C_kBSVJ6vXgGmBFDK_J4053WeMSOJK07P-VQ_8g@mail.gmail.c > om> > , Chuck Tuffli writes: >> --000000000000c9481f05b86a0c60 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:27 AM Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In message <202101081920.108jkud2003...@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert >>> writes: >>>> In message <74314bd0-a0f8-481a-93a0-28fb83cb2...@freebsd.org>, Jessica >>>> Clarke w >>>> rites: >>> >> ... >> >>>>> This broke powerpc and powerpc64: >> >> >> Sorry about that. I'll fix this in a bit. >> >> --chuck > > Looks like dim@ already did. > > The time before last I fixed one of these it was pointed out to me > privately that when we use %jd that we should also cast to intmax_t or > uintmax_t, and that jhb@ told him. This was to future-proof, assuming we'd > have 128-bit processors one day.
That is certainly valid for e.g. time_t or other types with a varying width, or where you cannot predict the exact width. But for printing uint64_t and friends, where the width *is* exactly specified, I would rather just use the standards-defined PRIu64 and so on. Casting will obscure any type mismatches between the printf format strings and the actual arguments. -Dimitry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
