From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   Keith Thompson  writes:   
      
   > Michael S  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 22:02:03 -0500   
   >> "James Russell Kuyper Jr."  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-09 07:18, Michael S wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 19:31:13 -0500   
   >>>> "James Russell Kuyper Jr."  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>>>> I'd have no problem with your approach if you hadn't falsely   
   >>>>> claimed that "It is correct on all platforms".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which I didn't.   
   >>>   
   >>> On 2026-01-07 19:38, Michael S wrote:   
   >>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>>> No, it is correct on all implementation.   
   >>   
   >> The quote is taken out of context.   
   >> The context was that on platforms that have properties (a) and (b) (see   
   >> below) printing variables declared as uint32_t via %u is probably UB   
   >> according to the Standard (I don't know for sure, however it is   
   >> probable),   
   >   
   > I'm sure.  uint32_t is an alias for some predefined integer type.   
      
   Very likely, but I don't think the C standard requires it.  TTBOMU   
   the C standard allows the possibility of an implementation where   
   uint32_t is type distinct from any other nameable type, and yet   
   the implementation could still be conforming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)