On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 09:36, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>
> Copying the line for context, it's about `p-r` where
> p = memchr_inv([1], 0, sizeof(r) - sizeof(r[0]));
> `p-r` should never be negative unless something has gone horribly
> horribly wrong.
Sure it would - if 'p' is NULL.
Of course,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:22 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 04:10, 'Justin Stitt' via KUnit Development
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > > The correct format specifier for p - n (both p and n are pointers) is
> > > %td,
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 04:10, 'Justin Stitt' via KUnit Development
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> > The correct format specifier for p - n (both p and n are pointers) is
> > %td, as the type should be ptrdiff_t.
>
> I think %tu is better. d
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> The correct format specifier for p - n (both p and n are pointers) is
> %td, as the type should be ptrdiff_t.
I think %tu is better. d specifies a signed type. I don't doubt that the
warning is fixed but I think %tu represents the
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:27:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> The correct format specifier for p - n (both p and n are pointers) is
> %td, as the type should be ptrdiff_t.
>
> This was discovered by annotating KUnit assertion macros with gcc's
> printf specifier, but note that gcc incorrectly
The correct format specifier for p - n (both p and n are pointers) is
%td, as the type should be ptrdiff_t.
This was discovered by annotating KUnit assertion macros with gcc's
printf specifier, but note that gcc incorrectly suggested a %d or %ld
specifier (depending on the pointer size of the
