[PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Nicholas Krause]

This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 fixincludes/fixincl.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fixincludes/fixincl.c b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
index 6dba2f6e830..8e16a2f7792 100644
--- a/fixincludes/fixincl.c
+++ b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ main (int argc, char** argv)
     tSCC zFmt[] =
       "\
 Processed %5d files containing %d bytes    \n\
-Applying  %5d fixes to %d files\n\
+Applying  %5d fixes to %lu files\n\
 Altering  %5d of them\n";
 
     fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Joseph Myers]

This patch is wrong for multiple reasons (the %d you're changing is for an 
int argument, so is correct as-is, and %lu is not portable for size_t, so 
since we may not be able to assume C99 %zu on the host you'd need to cast 
the ttl_data_size argument explicitly to unsigned long int to use %lu for 
it).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

[PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Nicholas Krause]

This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fixincludes/fixincl.c b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
index 6dba2f6e830..4e3010df0a6 100644
--- a/fixincludes/fixincl.c
+++ b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
@@ -159,10 +159,10 @@ main (int argc, char** argv)
     tSCC zFmt[] =
       "\
 Processed %5d files containing %d bytes    \n\
-Applying  %5d fixes to %d files\n\
+Applying  %5lu fixes to %d files\n\
 Altering  %5d of them\n";
 
-    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
+    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, (unsigned long int) ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
              fixed_ct, altered_ct);
   }
 #endif /* DO_STATS */
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Joseph Myers]

This is still changing the wrong format specifier (the one corresponding 
to apply_ct, which is an int).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[nick]

On 2018-12-20 4:02 p.m., Joseph Myers wrote:
> This is still changing the wrong format specifier (the one corresponding 
> to apply_ct, which is an int).
> 

Sorry for the dumb mistakes as I seem to have miscounted the variables over
in my understanding of the code.

I will resend again and sorry for wasting your time Joseph,

Nick

[PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Nicholas Krause]

This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fixincludes/fixincl.c b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
index 6dba2f6e830..5b8b77a77f0 100644
--- a/fixincludes/fixincl.c
+++ b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
@@ -158,11 +158,11 @@ main (int argc, char** argv)
   if (VLEVEL( VERB_PROGRESS )) {
     tSCC zFmt[] =
       "\
-Processed %5d files containing %d bytes    \n\
+Processed %5d files containing %lu bytes    \n\
 Applying  %5d fixes to %d files\n\
 Altering  %5d of them\n";
 
-    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
+    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, (unsigned int long) ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
              fixed_ct, altered_ct);
   }
 #endif /* DO_STATS */
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
>code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
>%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.

Well the proper specifier for size_t is %zu, but since you cast to
unsigned long then %lu is right.


>Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>---
> fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/fixincludes/fixincl.c b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
>index 6dba2f6e830..5b8b77a77f0 100644
>--- a/fixincludes/fixincl.c
>+++ b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
>@@ -158,11 +158,11 @@ main (int argc, char** argv)
>   if (VLEVEL( VERB_PROGRESS )) {
>     tSCC zFmt[] =
>       "\
>-Processed %5d files containing %d bytes    \n\
>+Processed %5d files containing %lu bytes    \n\
> Applying  %5d fixes to %d files\n\
> Altering  %5d of them\n";
>
>-    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
>+    fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, (unsigned int long) ttl_data_size, apply_ct,

I'd expect "unsigned long" not "unsigned int long".

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[NightStrike]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
> >code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
> >%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
>
> Well the proper specifier for size_t is %zu, but since you cast to
> unsigned long then %lu is right.

Wouldn't the right fix be to not cast to unsigned long and use %zu?

Re: [PATCH] Use proper print formatter in main function in fixincl.c

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 07/01/19 11:01 -0500, NightStrike wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/12/18 17:23 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> >This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
>> >code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
>> >%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
>>
>> Well the proper specifier for size_t is %zu, but since you cast to
>> unsigned long then %lu is right.
>
>Wouldn't the right fix be to not cast to unsigned long and use %zu?

That was added in C99 and so is not part of C++98. GCC only requires a
C++98 compiler (and library).