On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:44:24AM +, Robert Elz wrote:
> Why is there no PRI[xd]OFF ? How are off_t's intended to be printed?
%jd + cast to intmax_t.
Joerg
Date:Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:03:31 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20170320120331.ga19...@britannica.bec.de>
| On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:44:24AM +, Robert Elz wrote:
| > Why is there no PRI[xd]OFF ? How are off_t's intended to be printed?
|
| %j
> Log Message:
> Ugh. This stuff is disgusting. We really need an arch dependent
> PRIxOFF (and PRIdOFF) to print off_t's in a way that matches the
> arch's definition of off_t.
off_t is supposed to be more-MI. it comes down to:
sys/types.h:177:typedef __off_t off_t; /* file