X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: printf() doesn't print long long intege, maybe RHIDE problem
References: <437d9a13 AT news DOT bezeqint DOT net> <9krff.1763$wf DOT 538 AT newsread3 DOT news DOT atl DOT earthlink DOT net> <437e55e2 DOT 279951667 AT localhost> <Cxvff.2173$N45 DOT 189 AT newsread1 DOT news DOT atl DOT earthlink DOT net> <dlm8uk$elj$1 AT domitilla DOT aioe DOT org> <Iayff.1893$wf DOT 1283 AT newsread3 DOT news DOT atl DOT earthlink DOT net> <dlmoqh$t6e$1 AT domitilla DOT aioe DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <dlmoqh$t6e$1@domitilla.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <b_Iff.2403$N45.1990@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:08:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.46.242
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT earthlink DOT net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1132420103 165.247.46.242 (Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:08:23 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:08:23 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net> wrote in message
> news:Iayff.1893$wf DOT 1283 AT newsread3 DOT news DOT atl DOT earthlink DOT net...
> 
>>Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Ambuhl" <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net> wrote in message
>>>news:Cxvff.2173$N45 DOT 189 AT newsread1 DOT news DOT atl DOT earthlink DOT net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:01 GMT, Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>printf() do not print long long integer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Show us how it fails.  Here is an example of it working:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip example>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's another example:
>>>>>
>>>>>printf("%llX\n", (long long)-1);
>>>>
>>>>If you mean an example of undefined behavior.  The %llX specifier
>>>>expects an unsigned long long; (long long)-1 is not unsigned.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's probably better to use capital L, instead of ll, since it works
> 
> with
> 
>>>multiple compilers...
>>>e.g.,
>>>
>>>sscanf(s,"%Lx",&value);
>>>
>>>printf("%Lu:%Lx\n",prime,counter);
>>>
>>
>>Wrong.  Since the L length modifier specifies that the argument is a
>>long double, you've found another way to screw things up.
> 
> 
> No sir, I am correct.  You are partially correct.  

Come off it.  You claimed that
 > It's probably better to use capital L, instead of ll, since it works
 > with multiple compilers...

This is a gross error.  Read what you have quoted from the standard:

> an optional L specifying that a following e , E , f , g , or G conversion
> specifier applies to a long double argument. If an h , l , or L appears with
> any other conversion specifier, the behavior is undefined.

Suggesting replacing a correct standard specifier with one with 
undefined behavior which is specific to particular implementations is a 
very peculiar way to targer "multiple compilers."  You do a real 
disservice by doing such and should stop it.  Your attempt to justify 
this anti-social suggestion contains the very language which shows you 
to be wrong.