On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
vapierfilter@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
probably want to disable this stuff for u-boot since it doesnt make much sense by adding -Wno-format-nonliteral and -Wno-format-security when the compiler supports it.
as for this one particular change, it probably makes sense to change it to puts(usage) anyways since the usage string contains no format modifiers. it'll be faster this way. and the code should be written: static const char usage[] = "...";
the current usage has useless overhead.
Yes, but puts() adds an newline so you can't just replace the above printf with puts()
no, it doesnt. u-boot's put() doesnt act the same as the standard C library.
however, that doesnt change my original point ... we shouldnt be "fixing" things like this that have no relevance in the u-boot world. disable the warning flags in the build system.
Why encourage bad habits? Are there any instances of this in U-Boot where conversion to puts() wouldn't be an improvement, especially given the lack of an automatic newline in U-Boot's version?
that wasnt what i was saying. my point is simply that changing printf(foo); to printf("%s", foo); simply to satisfy a gcc warning is wrong and unnecessarily bloats the compiled code. if you want to change it from printf(foo) to puts(foo), that's fine by me (and is actually what i suggested). -mike