X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Trace:	100501256/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.66.2.206/None/johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk
X-SBRS:	None
X-RemoteIP:	79.66.2.206
X-IP-MAIL-FROM:	johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk
X-MUA:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-IP-BHB:	Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered:	true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:	AqwEAAvCCklPQgLO/2dsb2JhbACEG1XJVoNR
X-IronPort-AV:	E=Sophos;i="4.33,523,1220223600"; d="scan'208";a="100501256"
Message-ID:	<011601c93b6e$49bbb710$4001a8c0@mycomputer>
From:	"John Emmas" <johne53 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<490A30C8 DOT 5000107 AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <001601c93b31$a961b940$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <003e01c93b42$e92a17a0$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <490AE8A0 DOT 8090009 AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <001a01c93b4d$617de150$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <490AF1E3 DOT 3020308 AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <007401c93b56$ebcfa510$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <490B0084 DOT 1070803 AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <008a01c93b5a$9338d300$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <490B078B DOT 9030007 AT byu DOT net> <20081031135011 DOT GB15518 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <490B21E9 DOT 80807 AT lysator DOT liu DOT se>
Subject:	Re: cygwin g++ strictness
Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:35:22 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Rosin"
Sent: 31 October 2008 15:19
Subject: Re: cygwin g++ strictness
>
> I some projects I'm involved with there's quite a bit of the following:
>
> [...]
>
> int.c:6: warning: int format, int32_t arg (arg 2)
>
I must confess, this has been a source of irritation for me too but at least
it doesn't stop the build.  It does however bring us back to the fundamental
question - when programming like this:-

int32_t i = 32;
printf("%d", i);

is it reasonable for a programmer to assume that a type declared as int32_t
will be compatible with "%d" when building for a 32-bit platform?  I'd be
surprised if there's a programmer amongst us who can honestly say he
wouldn't have made that assumption.

John 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -