[cfe-dev] warning with conditional operator and printf, is this a bug ?

[Ted Kremenek]

Thanks so much.

On Nov 4, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Axel Gonzalez wrote:

> 
> I just reported the bug:
> 
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=11313
> 
> I added Ted in the CC list as requested.
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
> On Friday 04 November 2011 07:15:13 Ted Kremenek wrote:
>> David,
>> 
>> Can you file a bug report and CC me?
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2011, at 12:20 AM, John McCall wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 10:34 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>>>> This is a test case, not sure if its a bug with printf.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't believe this is a bug, no.
>>> 
>>> It's a clear false positive in our format checker.  Promoting an
>>> unsigned value to a wider signed type performs a zero-extend, so the
>>> distinction between signed and unsigned formats is irrelevant and
>>> either %d or %ud should be acceptable.  (The reverse would not be true:
>>> we should still warn about using unsigned formats with promoted signed
>>> types).
>>> 
>>> John.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> -- 
> Fri Nov  4 12:22:01 2011 GMT
> 
>        **
>       ******
>      *********
>      **********
>      **********
>      *********
>       ******
>        **      9.
>