> > That wasn't clear from Miod's response. So the policy is to assume > > that char/short/int/long long are 8/16/32/64 bits and that intptr_t > > is long?
We only run on C8S16I32L32P32 and C8S16I32L64P64 architectures. Short names ILP32 and I32LP64. The addition of any other sizing would require us to fix thousands of subtle bugs, and crank the ABI on every architecture. > Should that be added to style(9), then? > I assume that the lack of a response means yes. Perhaps. Thing is, we don't want people to worsen the current situation for decades down the line in case someone tries to create a 'popular' architecture with I64. > The patches at http://www.sfritsch.de/~stf/openbsd-format-string/ fix > all warnings on i386 and do not cause new warnings on amd64. Nice. > Since the kernel's printf does not support %td for ptrdiff_t, I have > used %ld instead. %zd would also work. Is there a preferred way? Or try to add %td support to kernel printf?
