Hello.
On 31-05-2013 9:20, Joe Perches wrote:
Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
equivalent to "0x%lx".
Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying enough to avoid %#x for any value which may be 0. It's
especially bad if you try to line up things by adding leading zeros.
Yep, I found that 0x%lx produced the same output as %p.
Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to
determine what the kernel outputs.
lib/vsprintf.c does not output the same. (32 bit)
The kernel output is;
printk("0x%lx\n", 0x100ul) 0x100
printk("%p\n", (void *)0x100ul) 00000100
printk("%#p\n", (void *)0x100ul) 0x00000100
The last one isn't used at all in kernel source. (gcc complains)
It's always "0x%p"
I was talking about using "%#lx", not "%#p". I don't see it in your
example.
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
