Re: [Tinycc-devel] match formats and arguments exactly

[C.J. Wagenius]

This patch has little to do with the general forrmating functions. Maybe the 
name of the patch is a bit misleading. Pascal are simply casting some values to 
the correct type, that are formatted in error messages. This so that no 
undefined behavior occurs.

Hope this sort things out.

/cjw

21 juni 2019 17:24 av address@hidden:

> Don't misunderstand me, this check is a very valuable addition. For an
> uncounted number of years I use any possible warnings and my code (almost)
> pass with all sanitizer, splint, code analyzers ...
> You should also understand that many code slowly moved from K&R to ANSI, to
> C98 .. C11 and it's a pain to port from one C version to another especially
> when you're not the original author. 
> If you always do this check, suddenly a code w.o warning you develop with
> tcc will display hundreds or thousands new warnings nobody will have the
> energy to fix (very likely with a ugly cast on the argument).
> Rigid (or pedantic) developers, as I am, certainly would like to activate
> -Wformat and fix incorrect format string. Others, will be very happy to see
> no more warning than they use to have.
>
> So I personally vote to add this check if it protest only with -Wformat. I
> can also accept it exists only with -std=c11 even if it's not the gcc
> behavior.
>
> IMHO gcc compatibility (or VC++ on Windows) should be a goal for tcc. We are
> many to use tcc for its fast development cycle but gcc/vc remains the only
> choice for release.
>
>
> From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=address@hidden]
> On Behalf Of ian
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 16:54
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] match formats and arguments exactly
>
> Hi Pascal,
> I *know* that (including the no-way part).
> And I *know* too that this misuse is sometimes what's expected by
> developers...
> Anyway, I don't think it's desirable that kinds of pointers are checked.
> Still my humble opinion.
> -- ian (address@hidden)
> -- développeur compulsif
> Le 21/06/2019 à 16:47, Pascal Cuoq a écrit :
>
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 16:10, ian <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello,IMHO, considering that flexibility is what I love in C programming,
> and that this checking should be printf job (in that case),
>
> Unfortunately, this is not how printf, or other variadic functions, work.
> The way they work is: the non-variadic arguments (in the case of printf, the
> format string) indicate what variadic arguments should be consumed with what
> type. If the types of the arguments actually passed do not match the types
> indicated by the non-variadic arguments, the behavior is undefined.
>
> Not only printf, and other variadic functions, have no obligation to warn
> you if you misuse them, but on every existing platform (including the exotic
> platforms where a pointer is not a pointer), they actually have no way to
> warn you that you are misusing them.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>