PiJoules wrote:

> This patch looks fine from my end, but I was wondering: Does clang do 
> warnings for printf flags that don't apply to a specific conversion? As an 
> example, in the format specifier `"%+R"` is technically undefined since the 
> `+` flag only applies to signed conversions. In practice it's not a big deal 
> (we just ignore irrelevant flags) but it could be an area of further 
> development.

Oh, that's a good point. Since `+` is used for signed types, I'll also emit a 
warning for `+` with unsigned types similar to how clang does it with unsigned 

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to