On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> Do we really silently accept them? Until very recently (a month ago?), we
>>> emitted:
>>>
>>> t.c:4:12: warning: length modifier 'L' results in undefined behavior or no
>>> effect with 'i' conversion specifier [-Wformat]
>>> printf("%Li", (long long) 2);
>>> ~^~
>>> 1 warning generated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I see that TOT doesn't warn here. Is this accepted somewhere? I see no
>>> test cases in clang/test that shows we should accept this. Was this an
>>> intentional change, or a regression?
>>
>> r148859 made them accepted about a month ago. Looks intentional to me :)
>
> Which brings up the question, where is that documented? At least the
> Linux documentation is silent on this being valid.
According to PR 9466, this is a general GNU extension:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Integer-Conversions.html
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
