On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 21:00, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> There's "non-standard" and then there's completely unportable. Warnings
> like:
>
> + // Combining 'L' with an integer conversion specifier.
> + printf("%Li", (long long)42); // expected-warning{{using the length
> modifier 'L' with the conversion specifier 'i' is non-standard}}
> + printf("%Lo", (long long)42); // expected-warning{{using the length
> modifier 'L' with the conversion specifier 'o' is non-standard}}
>
[...]
> Do we really silently accept them? Until very recently (a month ago?), we
> emitted:
>
> t.c:4:12: warning: length modifier 'L' results in undefined behavior or no
> effect with 'i' conversion specifier [-Wformat]
> printf("%Li", (long long) 2);
> ~^~
> 1 warning generated.
>
>
> Now I see that TOT doesn't warn here. Is this accepted somewhere? I see no
> test cases in clang/test that shows we should accept this. Was this an
> intentional change, or a regression?
r148859 made them accepted about a month ago. Looks intentional to me :)
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
