This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Proto-patch for "%I64" on Microsoft


joseph@codesourcery.com (Joseph S. Myers)  wrote on 26.11.04 in <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411262214310.1382@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>:

> but not for signedness of bit-fields, for example.  I suspect we want two
> different options (whether command-line options, or printf / system_printf
> format attributes), to warn for formats according to some standard set or
> according to what the system supports - but I don't care for such changes
> in this area at this development stage.

Three, at least: standard (whichever is selected), system libc, and user- 
defined implementation. (The latter would, for example, handle gcc error  
formats and Linux kernel format extensions.)

Though I'm afraid even that might not be enough, considering that it is  
highly desirable to implement format checking for, say, NSString  
stringWithFormat - which, apart from needing to look at @".." constants  
instead of normal or wide strings, has a different format specifier set  
again (includes %@, for example, and does not necessarily implement the  
same set as printf for normal specs, either).

Long-time, I suspect one would like to be able to define named format  
specifier sets, and define in some yet-to-determined manner what specs  
that named set actually supports, and then attach named sets to formatting  
functions much like is done today. Just predefine sets for standard and  
system libc.

MfG Kai


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]