linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0610112128090.9822@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:28:46 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, torvalds@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers


>> > > %p will do no such thing in the kernel.  As for the difference...
>> > > %x
>> > > might happen to work on some architectures (where sizeof(void
>> > > *)==sizeof(int)),
>> > > but it's not portable _and_ not right.  %p is proper C for that...
>> 
>> Ah I see your point, but then again, %lx could have been used. Unless
>> there is some arch where sizeof(long) != sizeof(void *).
>
> That really makes gcc bitch, *and* it's wrong for a whole bunch of reasons.

Ah my bad. Thanks for the slap reminder. :)


	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/