This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi In tracking down warnings in RTEMS, we have one which is for a printf() format specifier on wchar_t. The code originated in FreeBSD and the initial code we had did have the wrong specifier. But this was flagged on a subset of targets. When I corrected the warning, the situation changed and some targets gave false positive. I have attached correct and incorrect test cases. I am hoping someone here can give me a clue as to where to look. I am wondering if this is an inconsistency across targets in the C library. I did file this as GCC PR63301 but it was quickly closed as invalid. But I think the inconsistent generation of warnings is a bug. The test script "j" and its output are attached. Notice some targets have no warnings, some warning on both, and mixes. I would expect the output to be similar on *-elf targets. Any suggestions on how to address this? I would love to see our code be warning free on all targets. Thanks. -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985
Attachment:
correct_wchar.c
Description: Text document
Attachment:
incorrect_wchar.c
Description: Text document
Attachment:
j
Description: Text document
Attachment:
output.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |