Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] inet_net_pton.3: Use 'PRIx32' rather than "%x" when
 printing 'uint32_t' values
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200910211344.3562-1-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
 <20200910211344.3562-2-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
 <928d25b7-7f97-f9b9-80ce-0550c18131c2@gmail.com>
From:   Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <050c5399-8f08-5ae6-2546-0cafd055780a@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:39:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <928d25b7-7f97-f9b9-80ce-0550c18131c2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michael,

On 2020-09-11 11:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 9/10/20 11:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   man3/inet_net_pton.3 | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/man3/inet_net_pton.3 b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> index 00f94b9d4..d74a33d74 100644
>> --- a/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> +++ b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> @@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ Raw address:              c1a80180
>>   /* Link with "\-lresolv" */
>>   
>>   #include <arpa/inet.h>
>> +#include <inttypes.h>
>>   #include <stdio.h>
>>   #include <stdlib.h>
>>   
>> @@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>          may not have been touched by inet_net_ntop(), and so will still
>>          have any initial value that was specified in argv[2]. */
>>   
>> -    printf("Raw address:              %x\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
>> +    printf("Raw address:              %"PRIx32"\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
>>   
>>       exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
>>   }
> 
> So, I'm in a little bit of doubt about patches 01 and 02. Does
> this really win us anything? On the one hand, %"PRIx32" is more
> difficult to read than %x. On the other, does it win us anything
> in terms of portability? At first glance, the answers seems to me
> to be "no". Your thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael

On 16-bit systems 'unsigned int' might be shorter than 'uint32_t'.
There it would make a difference, I guess.


Thanks,

Alex