Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
We use our own Printf, should be fine.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 13 Feb 2012 at 3:48
Still, this is very misleading and error prone. Using %lx, etc syntax makes
people think there is a printf() underneath.
I suggest we invent a new syntax for Printf format lines, so that no one will
ever confuse it with printf(). It can also have a specifier for decimal
intptr_t/uintptr_t, that normal printf() is lacking.
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:52
Really, I see no problem. at all. And we have much more important things to
care about.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:55
For short term mitigation, I suggest we replace all % with @.
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:57
I hope you are kidding.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 7:05
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=64-bit_Po
rtability#64-bit_Portability
Original comment by gli...@chromium.org
on 15 Feb 2012 at 7:08
I kind of was :)
Per online discussion, I'm adding %zu/%zd to Printf.
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 7:16
can this be closed? (or fixed and closed?)
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 24 Feb 2012 at 10:59
First fixed, then closed.
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:23
Ping. Please either fix or close.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 16 Mar 2012 at 4:54
http://codereview.appspot.com/5856044/
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:00
Can this be marked as fixed already?
Original comment by ramosian.glider@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:23
Original comment by euge...@google.com
on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:46
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
euge...@google.com
on 13 Feb 2012 at 1:02