Re: [PATCH 01/24] inet_net_pton.3: Use 'PRIx32' rather than "%x" when printing 'uint32_t' values

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Michael,

On 2020-09-11 11:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

Hi Alex,

On 9/10/20 11:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6....@gmail.com>
---
  man3/inet_net_pton.3 | 3 ++-
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man3/inet_net_pton.3 b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
index 00f94b9d4..d74a33d74 100644
--- a/man3/inet_net_pton.3
+++ b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ Raw address:              c1a80180
  /* Link with "\-lresolv" */

#include <arpa/inet.h>

+#include <inttypes.h>
  #include <stdio.h>
  #include <stdlib.h>

@@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])

         may not have been touched by inet_net_ntop(), and so will still
         have any initial value that was specified in argv[2]. */

- printf("Raw address: %x\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));

+    printf("Raw address:              %"PRIx32"\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));

exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);

  }

So, I'm in a little bit of doubt about patches 01 and 02. Does
this really win us anything? On the one hand, %"PRIx32" is more
difficult to read than %x. On the other, does it win us anything
in terms of portability? At first glance, the answers seems to me
to be "no". Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Michael

On 16-bit systems 'unsigned int' might be shorter than 'uint32_t'.
There it would make a difference, I guess.


Thanks,

Alex