> This was not a part of the PR and is completely cosmetic (surely it > supports plain %x if it does support %#x). Why was this necessary? > (I know I would be quite miffed if someone made a change like that to > my code).
Yes, that %x formatting change was not part of the PR, but I only changed 0x%x not plain %x. I did it because as I was fixing the 0x%x in the log, I started changing them to %#jx so I did it globally in that directory for consistency. It found two formats that were 0x%hu... So one can view it as a format consistency checker(not just cosmetic). christos
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP