DCC version 1.3.28/2.3.28 released

> From: Nigel Horne 

> > Do you know what they suggest instead of "%#llx" and similar printf()
> > patterns for 64-bit values?
>
> Surely what matters isn't the warning, it's the error about static
> definitions that broke the compilation?

Are you saying that I didn't resolve the static vs. global/common
complaint from the compiler on your system in version 1.3.29?
Did you try running updatedcc again to see if that problem is fixed
in 1.3.29?

I believe in fixing compiler warnings when practical and when they don't
reflect harmless bugs in the target.  The officious idiot printf() Y2K
blatter from gcc, the complaints on Solaris about the Solaris bug of
the missing prototype for deamon(), and the complaints on Solaris about
potential alignment problems are, respectively, examples of harmless
compiler bugs, harmless platform library bugs, and non-bugs that generate
warnings that are difficult or impractical to resolve.

I don't have a copy of the C99 standard, but as far as I can tell from
the web, "%#llx" is valid in C99.  If that's right, then I'm inclined
to list the warnings about %ll as compiler bugs in your flavor of Linux.
Unless there is an alternative to "%ll" (other than the deprecated "%q"),
they are at least non-bugs that are impossible to resolve.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com