vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 19:53:50:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
> >> >> probably want to disable this stuff for u-boot since it doesnt make
> >> >> much sense by adding -Wno-format-nonliteral and -Wno-format-security
> >> >> when the compiler supports it.
> >> >>
> >> >> as for this one particular change, it probably makes sense to change
> >> >> it to puts(usage) anyways since the usage string contains no format
> >> >> modifiers. it'll be faster this way. and the code should be written:
> >> >> static const char usage[] = "...";
> >> >>
> >> >> the current usage has useless overhead.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but puts() adds an newline so you can't just replace the above
> >> > printf
> >> > with puts()
> >>
> >> no, it doesnt. u-boot's put() doesnt act the same as the standard C
> >> library.
> >>
> >> however, that doesnt change my original point ... we shouldnt be
> >> "fixing" things like this that have no relevance in the u-boot world.
> >> disable the warning flags in the build system.
> >
> > Why encourage bad habits? Are there any instances of this in U-Boot where
> > conversion to puts() wouldn't be an improvement, especially given the lack
> > of an automatic newline in U-Boot's version?
>
> that wasnt what i was saying. my point is simply that changing
> printf(foo); to printf("%s", foo); simply to satisfy a gcc warning is
> wrong and unnecessarily bloats the compiled code. if you want to
> change it from printf(foo) to puts(foo), that's fine by me (and is
> actually what i suggested).
> -mike
Which is what I did in the second version I sent in a few hours ago :)
Jocke
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
