Re: [PATCH 1/6] Fix some "printf format" warnings.

Simon 'corecode' Schubert [off-list ref] writes:

Ramsay Jones wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

-        printf("%s%06o %s %d\t",
+        printf("%s%06lo %s %d\t",
                tag,
                ntohl(ce->ce_mode),

I think we should do this instead:

    printf("%s%06o %s %d\t", tag, (unsigned) ntohl(ce->ce_mode), ...

Oops, yes you are right.
(cygwin typedef's uint32_t as unsigned long.)

However, I would hate to add all those casts! Casts are not always
evil, but should be avoided if possible. Having said that, I don't
see another solution ...

shouldn't it be something like this?

printf("%s%06"PRIo32" %s %d\t", tag, ntohl(ce->ce_mode), ...)

that's the correct and allegedly portable way I guess.

Yes, except that that is only portable across platforms with
inttypes.h, and we would need a compatibility definition in
git-compat-util.h next to PRIuMAX definition we already have.

But I wonder if this is really worth it.  The thing is,

    printf("%s%06o %s %d\t", tag, (unsigned) ntohl(ce->ce_mode), ...

is perfectly readable for even old timers about git, as long as
they know traditional C and what ntohl() is.  And ce->ce_mode
even fits in 16-bit, so while we are _not_ supporting platforms
whose unsigned int is 16-bit, the above cast is not losing any
useful precision either.