From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A6103384AB5D; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:12:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A6103384AB5D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1713510741; bh=kyLnFbOK+QVG7alHAmNbs+iklmEwt816+t1MLIFOIog=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Oo+6YwZmsF6gFFzMqscNpjbHBlwsqMgwUvjtPu2ULiZHWKk48JX+9tZ9gcUjd4ztb G3wkH72YprjMLJfr4s+BkZaT83MNp2Rp0R8LrLzQ17laEK3wBMcZDArJMGzFDfwBiS UNw13noZUE4ijeD3U+NErDJCy4rxenxSW6qOEE1Q= From: "lh_mouse at 126 dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/95130] GCC ignoring attribute(format(gnu_printf)) on printf in mingw Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:12:20 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: lh_mouse at 126 dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95130 --- Comment #26 from LIU Hao --- (In reply to Martin Storsj=C3=B6 from comment #25) > But since the change in c51f1e7427e6a5ae2a6d82b5a790df77a3adc99a (released > in GCC 12 already), we probably don't need this any longer. So I think it > might be more correct to revert to ms_printf for UCRT, at least for GCC >= =3D > 12 - what do you think? Yes, makes perfect sense. One reason for it is the difference about `long double`, and another is that there are GNU specifiers that MS doesn't support e.g. `%m`.=