On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31: > >> probably want to disable this stuff for u-boot since it doesnt make > >> much sense by adding -Wno-format-nonliteral and -Wno-format-security > >> when the compiler supports it. > >> > >> as for this one particular change, it probably makes sense to change > >> it to puts(usage) anyways since the usage string contains no format > >> modifiers. it'll be faster this way. and the code should be written: > >> static const char usage[] = "..."; > >> > >> the current usage has useless overhead. > > > > Yes, but puts() adds an newline so you can't just replace the above printf > > with puts() > > no, it doesnt. u-boot's put() doesnt act the same as the standard C library. > > however, that doesnt change my original point ... we shouldnt be > "fixing" things like this that have no relevance in the u-boot world. > disable the warning flags in the build system. Why encourage bad habits? Are there any instances of this in U-Boot where conversion to puts() wouldn't be an improvement, especially given the lack of an automatic newline in U-Boot's version? If we have an instance where we really want formatting on a dynamic string, that's another matter. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
