tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX

To: rokuyama.rk%gmail.com@localhost
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
From: aran%100acres.us@localhost
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)

All,

> I forgot to mention in the previous message: %[oux] also fail for numbers
> larger than 1<<63:
>
> $ printf '%x\n' 0xffffc00000000000
> printf: 0xffffc00000000000: Result too large or too small
> 7fffffffffffffff

I am seeing something different:

  $printf '0x%x\n' 0xffffc00000000000
  0xffffc00000000000

I am running 9.99.72, so I could be a little out of date.

Aran

Attachment: pgpHjvIECI5nD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
  - From: Rin Okuyama

References:
- [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
  - From: Rin Okuyama
- Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
  - From: Robert Elz
- Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
  - From: Rin Okuyama

Prev by Date: Re: Proposal to drop MKCATPAGES
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
Previous by Thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
Next by Thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix printf(1) for integer larger than INTMAX_MAX
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index