Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> writes: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:30:22 +0200 > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: > >> print_uint() will silently promote its variable type to uint64_t, but there >> is nothing that ensures that the format string specifier passed along with >> it fits (and the function name suggest to pass "%u"). >> >> Fix this by changing print_uint() to use a native 'unsigned int' type, and >> introduce a separate print_u64() function for printing 64-bit values. All >> call sites that were actually printing 64-bit values using print_uint() are >> converted to use print_u64() instead. >> >> Since print_int() was already using native int types, just add a >> print_s64() to match, but don't convert any call sites. >> >> Cc: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <l...@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> > > Yes, this makes sense. Maybe there should be a print_luint for > consistency.
I just realised I missed a few call sites, so I'll resend. Should I call the new function print_luint() instead of print_u64()? > Also, I tried (in vain) to make a version that allows GCC to check the > format string. But it was a struggle and just gave up. Yeah, no idea how to do this either... -Toke
