On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Move the non-trivial code from the long pointer() function. We are
> going
> to add a check for the access to the address that will make it even
> more
> complicated.
>
> Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
>
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Move the non-trivial code from the long pointer() function. We are
> going
> to add a check for the access to the address that will make it even
> more
> complicated.
>
> Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
>
On Thu 2018-04-05 08:58:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> > back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> > going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a
On Thu 2018-04-05 08:58:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> > back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> > going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a
On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a pointer anyway
> in this situation.
>
May be. If one sees a
On (04/04/18 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> going wrong. They expect the IP address and not a pointer anyway
> in this situation.
>
May be. If one sees a
6 matches
Mail list logo
