https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rnsanchez at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
--- Comment #4 from Eric Blake ---
Arguably, "%u" with short should warn, while "%hu" with short should not. On
the other hand, if I use "%hu" with int, it is unclear to me whether I should
get a warning (the fact that I'm using %h to intentiona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
--- Comment #3 from Eric Blake ---
see also bug 66249 where the implementation-defined signedness of enums comes
into play, and where I argue that neither %d nor %u should warn when an enum
type is passed through varargs where the range of the en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
Eric Blake changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eblake at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> It doesn't warn but should warn for
>printf("%u\n", _short);
Actually, it (correctly) does warn in this case (as short it promoted to int,
which is also unsi
