Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> writes: > On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 18:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 13:08 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> > Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com> writes: >> > >> > > Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's >> > > equivalent to "0x%lx". >> > >> > Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that >> > those are not strictly equivalent. Personally I find the formatting of 0 >> > annoying enough to avoid %#x for any value which may be 0. It's >> > especially bad if you try to line up things by adding leading zeros. >> >> Yep, I found that 0x%lx produced the same output as %p. > > Don't use a standalone gcc compiled program to > determine what the kernel outputs.
That's a very good point. Sorry for mixing this up. You are of course right. The kernel does everything correctly, so there is no reason not to use %#x Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
