Browse thread
[Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers |
> Having looked at it a bit myself, the fix will probable be *ahem*
> interesting. Effectively, you have to stop using C's printf. Either
> that, or parse the format string a second (third?) time to see wether you
> need to do a signed or unsigned int conversion.
It's no big deal, really. (See the working sources on camlcvs.inria.fr.)
The formats are already parsed three(!) times:
- once in Caml (module Printf)
- once in C to determine the size of the buffer to hold the result
(file byterun/ints.c)
- once in the printf() C library function itself.
The way I fixed it, the signed/unsigned distinction is done in the
second parsing, although it could also be done during the first.
> Or, I suppose, we could
> completely redesign Ocaml to use 32-bit ints and do something else to
> differentiate ints from pointers :-).
If you can find a "something else" that is faster than systematically
boxing the 32-bit ints, you'll be hailed as the savior in compiler
circles :-)
- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners