[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-10-30 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 17:52 --- Well, I meant of course 4.4 branch. I won't backport this. So I closed this bug. -- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-08-24 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-24 06:20 --- Patch fixed for 4.5 at revision 151047. I would like to backport this patch to 4.4 and possibly to 4.3 branch, too? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40786

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-08-23 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-08-21 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 19:22 --- As to see on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf#printf_format_placeholders %I32 means, for integer types, causes to expect a 32-bit (double word) integer argument. May tests have shown that long type and int

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-08-18 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-18 11:32 --- Is there a way to make %I32 accepting both types? Something like FMT_LEN_z? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40786

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-07-19 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-19 08:55 --- I agree, that the behavior isn't correct here. %I32 is treated at the moment as equivalent for %l width specifier. But in fact is the type __int32 specifying an integer scalar with 32-bit width. For x86 and x64,

[Bug target/40786] Windows %I32 format confusion

2009-07-19 Thread sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-07-19 09:33 --- Problem also exists in 4.4.0/4.4.1. -- sezeroz at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added