On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > Some of these format specifier changes don't look right. Note that our > bu_*() functions implement additional print specifiers. If you're making > your way through compiler warnings, they'll probably give you false-positive > results. > > In the commit below, %V should be a bu_vls pointer. In others, %z is > provided by our for size_t. > In particular for %V, passing a bu_vls_addr() should result in a crash or > corruption.
I didn't mean to mess with the %V--just intercede with the %s's (I think I'm getting bleary eyed). I'll fix that. But I don't think the %z changes in other files are so bad--should be C89 portable, no? Best, -Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
