From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 07/01/2026 02:14, 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"?   
   >   
   >   
      
   "%lu" is, as you point out, the correct specifier for "unsigned long".   
      
   James made a mistake here - it's unusual for him, but we are all   
   fallible.  That is why it is a good idea to enable whatever static   
   warnings you can get from a compiler, as long as they don't conflict   
   with your particular coding style.  And that is why it is madness for   
   Michael to disable something as useful as printf format checking just   
   because he thinks "%lu" is "ugly".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)