From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7641 invoked by alias); 21 May 2009 15:26:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7625 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2009 15:26:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-48-46-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.48.46.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 2009 15:26:31 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED01713C023; Thu, 21 May 2009 11:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id ECDCC434E90; Thu, 21 May 2009 11:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:26:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches ml , Hui Zhu Subject: Re: [Prec/RFA] fix build error of prec in cygwin Message-ID: <20090521152621.GA27524@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches ml , Hui Zhu References: <20090510174809.GA25909@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090510235109.GD25909@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090518153510.GA23052@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:38:58AM +0800, Hui Zhu wrote: >Ping You are aware that it took you about seven days to respond to one of my messages right? I was confused by the fact that you didn't seem to be using CVS to generate your diffs and, on closer inspection, I see that there are multiple places where coercion is used inappropriately when the format specifier should just have matched the parameter. Some of your changes are now using "%u" with "(int) sizeof" (which is wrong) and some of the existing code is just using "(int) sizeof" with "%d" which is also wrong. So, in other words, the file was already not quite "right" and I don't think your changes are getting it much closer to "right". I was not implying that your changes didn't fix compiler errors. I was saying that I didn't think they were the correct way to fix the errors. However, since I am apparently the only person who cares about this stuff, and it doesn't seem like my point is getting across, I think I'll just shut up now. Other, global maintainers have said that they were ok with your changes so I'm not going to object even if they don't make sense to me. cgf