Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers

Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:10AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

Al Viro wrote:

%p will do no such thing in the kernel.  As for the difference...  %x

might happen to work on some architectures (where sizeof(void *)==sizeof(int)),

but it's not portable _and_ not right.  %p is proper C for that...

It's really too bad gcc bitches about %#p, because that's arguably The Right Thing.

It is correct that gcc warns about %#p, that invokes undefined behavior
in ISO C99.

Yes, it's a bug in the standard.

	-hpa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] use %p for pointers
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
    • From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: misused local_irq_disable() in analog.c?
• Next by Date: Bug in PCI core
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]