Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c > #703

Re: PRI* considered harmful

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.std.c
Subject Re: PRI* considered harmful
Date 2011-07-09 19:03 -0700
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lnhb6ux57t.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References <87mxgqhk3x.fsf@once.weird.com> <ln62nbyj5g.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <874o2vc7ab.fsf@once.weird.com>

Show all headers | View raw

"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.  (Which could, some day, prevent a conforming
C implementation for some future system.)

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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