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;
Cc:     mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] inet_net_pton.3: Use 'PRIx32' rather than "%x" when
 printing 'uint32_t' values
To:     Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
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>
 <050c5399-8f08-5ae6-2546-0cafd055780a@gmail.com>
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04da2934-1a38-2f3f-d2ed-475a0531a1c8@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <050c5399-8f08-5ae6-2546-0cafd055780a@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Alex,

On 9/11/20 11:39 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Michael,

[...]


>> 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.

I guess. But even un the 80s, when (I think) htonl() appeared,
I kind of doubt that there were many such systems. I think 
I'll skip these patches.

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/