On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > may have been subjected to. Issuing a warning for a safe piece > of code only on the basis that there might be some other piece > of code in the program that does something wrong makes no sense. > Suggesting to the user to change the safe piece of code is > misleading and counterproductive.
It's warning because it's *bad code*. Whether it's safe or not is peripheral. Lots of warnings are for things that are dubious even if they may happen to do what the user wants on the platforms they care about. I'd consider even cases of different signedness (e.g. passing one of int and unsigned int to a format expecting the other) to be dubious without a reason why values not representable in the other type can't reach that code - and I'd consider cases where the types are different not just in signedness to be clearly worse than the cases that we only warn for with -Wformat-signedness. > > There are plenty of architectures where the ABI does require the high part > > to be extended in a particular way; > > There is no high part when the wchar_t and wint_t types have > the same size, which they do not only in the case of interest but I mean high parts if the ABI is passing those arguments in 64-bit registers / stack slots and has requirements on how 32-bit arguments are extended for passing as 64-bit. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
