On 2019-01-07 10:44 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:42, nick wrote:
>>
>> Greetings All,
>>
>> I was wondering as I sent a patch before the holidays if I should resend it
>> as I did not get any replies.
>
> Which patch? I don't see any patch from you that didn't get some replies.
>
Sorry this is what I was talking about it's a fix for a bad patch:
This fixes the bug id, 71176 to use the proper known
code print formatter type, %lu for size_t rather than
%d which is considered best pratice for print statements.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofo...@gmail.com>
---
fixincludes/fixincl.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fixincludes/fixincl.c b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
index 6dba2f6e830..5b8b77a77f0 100644
--- a/fixincludes/fixincl.c
+++ b/fixincludes/fixincl.c
@@ -158,11 +158,11 @@ main (int argc, char** argv)
if (VLEVEL( VERB_PROGRESS )) {
tSCC zFmt[] =
"\
-Processed %5d files containing %d bytes \n\
+Processed %5d files containing %lu bytes \n\
Applying %5d fixes to %d files\n\
Altering %5d of them\n";
- fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, ttl_data_size, apply_ct,
+ fprintf (stderr, zFmt, process_ct, (unsigned int long) ttl_data_size,
apply_ct,
fixed_ct, altered_ct);
}
#endif /* DO_STATS */
--
2.17.1
Nick
