From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 11/01/2026 23:56, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   > Michael S  writes:   
      
   >> The solution that I would prefer would be universal adaption of   
   >> Microsoft's size specifiers I32 and I64. They are not going to win   
   >> beauty competition, but in practice they are a lot more convenient to   
   >> use than standard macros and are equally good at carrying programmer's   
   >> intentions.   
   >   
   > The relative beauty of a feature that isn't available hardly seems   
   > relevant.   
   >   
   > The ideal solution is to write correct, and preferably portable,   
   > code in the first place.  There are often good reasons to write   
   > non-portable code, but I suggest that fiding the correct format   
   > string to be ugly is not one of them.   
   >   
   > (Microsoft's documentation says that "I32" prefix applies to an   
   > argument of type __int32 or unsigned __int32.  I don't know whether   
   > __int32 is compatible with int, with long, or neither, and I don't   
   > much care.  I don't know what Microsoft guarantees about printf   
   > with incompatible types that happen to have the same size.)   
   >   
      
   C23 includes length specifiers with explicit bit counts, so "%w32u" is   
   for an unsigned integer argument of 32 bits:   
      
   """   
   wN Specifies that a following b, B, d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion   
   specifier applies to an integer argument with a specific width where N   
   is a positive decimal integer with no leading zeros (the argument will   
   have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value   
   shall be converted to the unpromoted type); or that a following n   
   conversion specifier applies to a pointer to an integer type argument   
   with a width of N bits. All minimum-width integer types (7.22.1.2) and   
   exact-width integer types (7.22.1.1) defined in the header    
   shall be supported. Other supported values of N are implementation-defined.   
   """   
      
   That looks to me that it would be a correct specifier for uint32_t, and   
   should also be fully defined behaviour for unsigned int and unsigned   
   long if these are 32 bits wide.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)