Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:22:23 +0200
From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: C99 types VS Linus types
Message-ID: <20030707122222.GE10021@merlin.emma.line.org>
Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1057579305.747.79.camel@cube>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1057579305.747.79.camel@cube>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1030
Lines: 28

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> > Speaking of shifting forward to standards:
> >
> > unsigned char foo = 42;
> > char bar[42];
> > sprintf(bar, "%ju", (uintmax_t)foo); // see IEEE Std 1003.1-2001
> >
> > If that's too ugly, write your own [u]intmax_t-to-char[]
> > converter, then only the stack is nasty if uintmax_t is 128
> > bits wide and you're printing an array uint8_t. :-P
> 
> Yes, that is too ugly. It's idealistic code.
> Readability matters more than worrying about
> something which won't happen for over 40 years,
> and won't cause Y2K-style problems even then.

sprintf doesn't lend itself too well to readibility anyways, and we have
these crutches in gcc to check argument types and all that, not to speak
of %n and other time bombs.

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