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
Content-Type: text/plain; 	format=flowed; 	charset="iso-8859-1"; 	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/