> Brent Cook wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Todd C. Miller <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:32:55 -0600, Brent Cook wrote: > > > > > >> Pretty trivial conversion. ok? > > > > > > OK but size_t should be printed %zu (%zd is ssize_t). > > > > > > - todd > > > > > > > If I had known I would get so many emails over this, I would have just done > > %zu > > in the first place :) I was just trying to keep them the same. > > > > I don't think I've ever seen a size_t value in the wild that was: > 1) larger than SIZE_MAX / 2 > 2) not the result of an error > > Usually, if %zu vs %zd matters, it's because somebody screwed up and you > actually are looking at a negative size_t. possible exception: -1 as a > sentinel. > Either way, it may be desirable to make such numbers look negative.
Yeah, I agree. Bugs are more likely to be fixed if people see -1. More people will know where to look.
