Windows’ msvcrt.dll has weird printf format strings that aren’t used anywhere else.
For example this code with Clang 3.1 on MinGW-w64 using GCC 4.6.3 libstdc++ headers:
int main(int argc,char **argv)
produces this warning:
M:\Development\x64\test>clang++ -std=c++11 test.cpp -c -Wall
test.cpp:11:15: warning: invalid conversion specifier ‘I’
M:/Development/mingw64/bin/../lib/clang/3.1/../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/include\inttypes.h:42:17: note: expanded from macro 'PRId64' #define PRId64 "I64d" ^ 1 warning generated. The "I64d" form is the "correct" msvcrt printf format string for this case, and the define in the mingw-w64 header inttypes.h is used to make the code correct and thus work around the msvcrt limitations. Clang (and don't worry, GCC too) warns on this use, while it really shouldn't, as this is correct on Windows. I understand from a MinGW-w64 dev that they annotate their printf prototype correctly, but the compiler's builtin definition conflicts with this, and hence the warning. So I think the right solution here is to allow the MS printf format strings as well. This should work for both Visual Studio based and MinGW-w64 based Clang. I was looking through the code, and found: [http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Analysis/PrintfFormatString.cpp](http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Analysis/PrintfFormatString.cpp) where I think the format string is handled, because printf is defined in [http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def](http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def) as a builtin. The warning is thrown from [http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp](http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp) as "diag::warn_format_invalid_conversion" I *think*. Am I right that there should be a modification to PrintfFormatString.cpp (and maybe ScanfFormatString.cpp as well?) to allow the MS specific format specifiers as defined here [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/56e442dc.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/56e442dc.aspx) ? I would prepare a patch, but I have no idea if the above is correct and what exactly (and how) I'd have to add this. Therefore: any help is much appreciated! Thanks, Ruben PS: please reply to my email directly as well, I'm not subscribed to cfe-dev