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: <20061011202814.GD20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:28:14 -0400
From:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>, torvalds@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use %p for pointers

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:45:10AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >
> >%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...
> 
> It's really too bad gcc bitches about %#p, because that's arguably The 
> Right Thing.

It is correct that gcc warns about %#p, that invokes undefined behavior
in ISO C99.

	Jakub
-
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/