[PATCH] Update:Change format specifiers to fix 4 warnings.

[Joel Sherrill]

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonnell8 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Great! That looks like a cleaner, more standardized solution. I was just
> hacking away until the warnings stopped. So can I go ahead and #include
> <inttypes.h> or should I wait until <rtems/inttypes.h> is defined before
> doing any more? Does this work for printk() too?
>

First the easy answer. printk() supports a subset of printf() formats. So
as long as it is a supported printf format, then yes. But I just looked for
printk() documentation and I don't see any. The code is in
cpukit/libcsupport/src/vprintk.c for a double check. It is supposed to
support everything required by any test.

If a file only uses C99 standard PRI constants, then use <inttypes.h>

If a file needs the extra ones being collected into <rtems/inttypes.h>,
then it should include that.

No need to introduce an unneeded dependency.

Funny, how this simple set of warnings has rippled. It also makes me
want to file a ticket for printk() documentation and adding code style
rules about <inttypes.h>.

--joel



>
> Thanks Joel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170407/e5fcf0d8/attachment-0002.html>