Summary: | ASTERISK-04552: [change request] be careful with printf format specifiers. | ||
Reporter: | Luigi Rizzo (rizzo) | Labels: | |
Date Opened: | 2005-07-10 17:36:38 | Date Closed: | 2011-06-07 14:10:30 |
Priority: | Minor | Regression? | No |
Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Core/General |
Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
Related Issues: | |||
Environment: | Attachments: | ||
Description: | recent changes to apps/app_sms.c and apps/app_readfile.c to silence the compiler on 64 bit platforms introduced the 'z' format modifier in a couple of places. For what matters, this breaks compilation on FreeBSD 4.x unless one introduces a dependency on gcc 3.x While i understand that in some cases it is unavoidable to use new compiler or library features, this is certainly not one of them -- one instance was simply a sizeof(var)/sizeof(type), which can be safely cast to an int or uint, and the other was a similarly trivial strlen(). So in the interest of portability I suggest to revert back these changes and cast the argument instead. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** no patch attached because it is 2 lines. And more than the patch, it is the principle that i care about. Actually, maybe we could add the above notes to the coding guidelines! | ||
Comments: | By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2005-07-10 23:34:54 All requested changes require a patch, even if the patch is so insignificant as to require no disclaimer. Please. :-) By: Luigi Rizzo (rizzo) 2005-07-11 14:55:06 clearly the message is not getting through, isn't it ? :) "no patch attached because it is 2 lines. And more than the patch, it is the principle that i care about. Actually, maybe we could add the above notes to the coding guidelines!" By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2005-07-11 15:24:06 Reopen when you're ready to provide a patch. By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2005-07-11 15:41:22 We have already publicly stated a dependency on gcc 3.x or above, especially with gcc 4.x now being the 'stable' and current release. While we have not yet enforced it, I doubt we are going to make code changes for the sole reason of preserving gcc 2.95.x compatibility. |