smeenai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42933#1092048, @rjmccall wrote:
> I agree that the format-specifier checker is not intended to be a portability > checker. > > Any attempt to check portability problems has to account for two things: > > - Not all code is intended to be portable. If you're going to warn about > portability problems, you need some way to not annoy programmers who might > have good reason to say that they only care about their code running on Linux > / macOS / 64-bit / 32-bit / whatever. Generally this means splitting the > portability warning out as a separate warning group. > - There are always established idioms for solving portability problems. In > this case, a certain set of important typedefs from the C standard have been > blessed with dedicated format modifiers like "z", but every other typedef in > the world has to find some other solution, either by asserting that some > existing format is good enough (as NSInteger does) or by introducing a macro > that expands to an appropriate format (as some things in POSIX do). A proper > format-portability warning would have to know about all of these conventions > (in order to check that e.g. part of the format string came from the right > macro), which just seems wildly out-of-scope for a compiler warning. Apple's current recommendation for using printf with the NSInteger types is casting to a long, per https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Strings/Articles/formatSpecifiers.html. Are you suggesting that recommendation would change to using `%zd` instead? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42933 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
