ISO C90 checking but ignoring 64-bit printf/scanf warnings

[Tom St Denis]

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> I am compiling generally with:
>
> CFLAGS += -W -Wall -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings
> -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wmissing-declarations -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Winline
> -Wbad-function-cast -fshort-enums -fstrict-aliasing -fno-common
> -Wno-packed -Wpadded -pedantic -Wall -Wmissing-include-dirs
> -Wswitch-default -Wformat=2 -Wformat-security -Wformat
> -Wmissing-format-attribute -D_REENTRANT -D_THREAD_SAFE -pipe -combine
> -Wunused -Winit-self -Wextra
>
> Adding "-pthread -Wno-variadic-macros" on some platforms and also the
> -m64 when the target is a 64bit platform, next to "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
> -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" to make everything (afaik,
> tips/comments welcome :) as much 64 bit as possible and getting as many
> warning as possible so that everything which seems a bit off will be caught.
>
> The annoying thing is though that I also get a lot of:
>
> warning: ISO C90 does not support the 'll' scanf length modifier
> warning: ISO C90 does not support the 'll' printf length modifier
>
> because of the -pedantic and -Wformat options. Now the question is, is
> there a way to let gcc ignore the above two warnings, thus in effect
> checking for ISO C90 + "ll" format?
>
> Or would the gcc developers accept a patch for such an option if it is
> not in there? Without those two warnings my app compiles clean, ripping
> those two warnings out though can't be accomplished with a simple grep
> and thus I think would require source changes.
>   

I don't get the question.  If ISO C90 doesn't mandate support for ll 
what's wrong with the warning?

More so, why are you hell-bent on conforming to C90 then requesting that 
it ignore standards violations?

Anyways, on a 64-bit platform %ld/%lu should print a 64-bit value since 
for most of these "long" is a native register size.

Tom