Re: PRI* considered harmful

From	Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl>
Newsgroups	comp.std.c
Subject	Re: PRI* considered harmful
Date	2011-07-11 20:40 +0200
Organization	Just me
Message-ID	<ivfg2r$ej7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<87mxgqhk3x.fsf@once.weird.com> <ln62nbyj5g.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <874o2vc7ab.fsf@once.weird.com> <lnhb6ux57t.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Greg A. Woods"<woods@robohack.org>  writes:
>> Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org>  writes:
> [...]
>>> Let's assume that, for a given implementation, sizeof (int) and sizeof
>>> (long) are both 4.  Your proposal assumes that both these calls:
>>>
>>>      int i;
>>>      long l;
>>>
>>>      printf("%Si\n", 1, 4, i);
>>>      printf("%Si\n", 1, 4, l);
>>>
>>> must work correctly.  The standard doesn't currently guarantee
>>> that int and long are passed the same way as arguments, even if
>>> they happen to be the same size.
>>>
>>> I think there have been compilers where int and long are the same
>>> size, but int has more padding bits and a narrower range.
>>
>> Does that matter in practice?  Do we have to assume the padding bits are
>> zeros for it to work?  Finding the sign bit is of course the trick, but
>> are you sure sizeof() reports the padding as well?  I'm not.
>
> Yes, the value yielded by sizeof includes any padding bits.
>
>> In an LP64I32 environment I would expect the CPP result to be as follows
>> even if the implementation always stores 64-bit words on the stack:
>>
>> 	printf("%Si\n", 1, 8, i);
>> 	printf("%Si\n", 1, 4, l);
>>
>> In that case the implementation of printf() would of course already have
>> to be aware of this issue and it would be trivial for "%Si" to deal with
>> it.
>
> Sure, there's no problem *in an LP64I32 environment*.  That's not
> the environment I was talking about.  I'm talking about a (perhaps
> hypothetical) environment where int and long are the same size but
> nevertheless have different characteristics.  Does printf need to
> know the difference?  It depends on just how they differ.  The C
> standard allows for a lot of variation.
>
> Maybe your proposal would actually work on every environment
> that exists in the real world.  But for it to be adopted, the
> standard would have to make sigificant changes to the requirements
> it imposes on implementations for the behavior of integer types,
> which implies a great deal of work to update the standard with the
> revised assumptions.

That's why I'd rather propose, instead of size, an enumeration with 
distinct (implementation-defined) values for each valid type supported 
by the implementation.  A standardized macro could then map expression 
type to an enumeration constant via the C1X generic selection construct 
(i.e. no compiler magic needed); as an added benefit, the macro would 
catch cases when a completely wrong type, like a floating-point or 
structure type, is passed to a specifier that expects only integer types.

Not that I really believe such a proposal would have any chance of being 
accepted by WG14 at the current state of things - there's no existing 
practice.
-- 
Marcin Grzegorczyk

Thread

PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-06 19:58 -0700
  Re: PRI* considered harmful William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-06 20:38 -0700
    Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-06 22:26 -0700
      Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-07 08:52 +0200
        Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 14:11 -0700
          Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-08 11:58 +0200
        Re: PRI* considered harmful lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 17:58 -0400
          Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-08 12:02 +0200
      Re: PRI* considered harmful lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 17:57 -0400
        Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-07 15:42 -0700
          Re: PRI* considered harmful lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-08 08:56 -0400
  Re: PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:36 -0400
    Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 12:59 -0700
      Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-07 14:12 -0700
        Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 15:49 -0700
          Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-07 16:46 -0700
            Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 18:26 -0700
              Re: PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0400
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 20:58 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2011-07-08 00:28 -0400
                Re: PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 07:41 -0400
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-08 23:05 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 00:50 -0700
                Re: [incorrectly implementd] PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-09 06:38 -0400
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2011-07-09 21:07 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-08 09:52 -0700
              Re: PRI* considered harmful Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-08 11:45 +0100
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-08 23:14 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 00:47 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 10:51 +0100
                Re: PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-09 06:43 -0400
              Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-08 09:49 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-08 23:24 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 00:45 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-09 16:18 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 18:57 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 09:37 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-09 06:46 -0400
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 08:09 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 16:00 +0300
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2011-07-09 20:59 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 12:22 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2011-07-09 21:32 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 12:54 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-09 23:39 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-09 16:56 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-09 16:52 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 18:53 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-10 14:12 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 20:22 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-10 13:57 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2011-07-19 19:28 +0000
      Re: PRI* considered harmful Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-07 14:13 -0700
  Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 01:04 -0700
    Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-09 17:23 -0700
      Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 19:03 -0700
        Re: PRI* considered harmful Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 20:40 +0200
          Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-11 11:56 -0700
            Re: PRI* considered harmful Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 21:40 +0200
              Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-11 13:16 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 23:29 +0200
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-11 14:46 -0700
              Re: PRI* considered harmful "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-12 22:18 -0700
                Re: PRI* considered harmful Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 09:00 -0700
  Re: PRI* considered harmful Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 20:30 +0100

csiph-web