From: already5chosen@yahoo.com   
      
   On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 15:54:06 +0000   
   bart  wrote:   
      
   > On 07/01/2026 11:41, Michael S wrote:   
   > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:14:21 +0000   
   > > bart  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 07/01/2026 00:44, James Kuyper wrote:   
   > >>> On 2026-01-06 13:05, Michael S wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>>> in case of using %u to print 'unsigned long' on target with   
   > >>>> 32-bit longs, or like using %llu to print 'unsigned long' on   
   > >>>> target with 64-bit longs, then beauty wins. Easily.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> You've got it backwards. "%u" is the correct specifier to use for   
   > >>> unsigned long on all platforms, whether unsigned long is 32, 36,   
   > >>> or even 48 bits.   
   > >>   
   > >> So not "%lu"?   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > > gcc and clang maintainers certainly think so.   
   > >   
   >   
   > They think it is correct or not correct? If I compile this:   
   >   
   >    #include    
   >   
   >    int main() {   
   >        unsigned long a=0;   
   >        printf("%u", a);   
   >    }   
   >   
   > then gcc complains (given suitable options):   
   >   
   >   warning: format '%u' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but   
   >   argument 2 has type 'long unsigned int' [-Wformat=]   
   >   
   > The suggests it is not correct.   
      
   May be, I was not sufficiently clear, but my post was agreeing with   
   your point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)