On Saturday 06 April 2013, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> > > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:04:04 +0200 > > > > Also, there does not seem to be a header in the kernel yet, that > > defines the standard PRI*. Should there be a new inttypes.h or, > > since we probably want to define these always, do we put them > > into {,_}types.h? > > There is no such header since we don't want that anybody uses them > in the kernel. We don't want anybody using them in base either, > although sometimes people make different decisions for their own > sub-project (e.g. smtpd).
That wasn't clear from Miod's response. So the policy is to assume that char/short/int/long long are 8/16/32/64 bits and that intptr_t is long? Should that be added to style(9), then? > > > > > Maybe a useful first step would be to remove -Wno-format and > > > > use -Wno- error=format instead? > > > > > > No, this syntax is not understood by gcc < 4. > > > > Since the warning options are defined in > > sys/arch/XX/XX/Makefile.XX, this can be done per architecture. > > We could do it on i386/amd64 only at first, that would already > > be a big win. "-Wno-errror=format" does not seem to prevent the > > warning 'zero-length kprintf format string' from triggering an > > error, but that seems to occur only once and could be fixed > > easily. > > Adding warnings without making them errors is almost a guarantee > that people will ignore them. The warnings are sufficiently rare to stand out (on average one warning in 10 source files on i386). Especially if one develops in a few files and frequently recompiles those. So, "-Wno-errror=format" may help that no new problems appear and a few people will likely care enough to even fix old problems.
