Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:58:17 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9 |
| |
Hi!
> > The printk warnings should be easy to fix once everybody uses the same > > types - I think we right now have workarounds exactly for 64-bit machines > > where w check BITS_PER_LONG and use different formats for them (exactly > > because they historically have _not_ had the same types as the 32-bit > > machines). > > > > However, if anybody on the list is hacking gcc, the best option really > > would be to just allow better control over gcc printf formats. I have > > wanted that in user space too at times. And it doesn't matter if it only > > happens in new versions of gcc - we can disable the warning altogether for > > old gcc's, as long as enough people have the new gcc to catch new > > offenders.. > > > > (I'd _love_ to be able to add printk modifiers for other common types in > > the kernel, like doing the NIPQUAD thing etc inside printk() instead of > > having it pollute the callers. All of which has been avoided because of > > the hardcoded gcc format warning..) > > > > While we're talking about printk()... is there any reason *not* to > rename it printf()?
I believe printf() is good idea. I put printk() into userland programs too many times now, and used printf() too many times from kernel...
Pavel
-- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email? - 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/
| |