Re: glibc: printf bug

[Bruce Korb]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > In this particular example, I was passing integers.
> 
> This doesn't matter.  The format is still different and this can mean
> the value is treated differently inside the function.  To print a char
> only the low byte is used, the rest can already be gone.

In that case, it seems to me you are saying that it is okay to make
non-obvious interpretations that are unique to glibc.  This construct
works fine on every other implementation I have tried that claims
to have the argument indexing implemented.  So, there may be enough
weasel words in the standard to allow you to trash the high bits of
the value, but that *really* doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so.
The idea of libraries is to facilitate programming, presenting as few
obstacles as possible.  It's a bug.