On 07/01/19 11:01 -0500, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
>code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
>%d which is considered best pratice f
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
> >code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
> >%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
>
> Well the prop
On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
Well the proper specifier for size_t is %zu, but since you cast to
unsigned long t
This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
---
fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fi
On 2018-12-20 4:02 p.m., Joseph Myers wrote:
> This is still changing the wrong format specifier (the one corresponding
> to apply_ct, which is an int).
>
Sorry for the dumb mistakes as I seem to have miscounted the variables over
in my understanding of the code.
I will resend again and sorr
This is still changing the wrong format specifier (the one corresponding
to apply_ct, which is an int).
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
---
fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fi
This patch is wrong for multiple reasons (the %d you're changing is for an
int argument, so is correct as-is, and %lu is not portable for size_t, so
since we may not be able to assume C99 %zu on the host you'd need to cast
the ttl_data_size argument explicitly to unsigned long int to use %lu for
This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
---
fixincludes/fixincl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fixinc
