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 ints. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82855 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
