[9] RFR(L): 8037816 : Fix for 8036122 breaks build with Xcode5/clang

[Mike Duigou]

On May 8 2014, at 22:52 , John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 2014, at 8:04 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> But surely the p2i + INTPTR_FORMAT change is an even bigger revert! Unless you propose to keep using PTR_FORMAT even with p2i ? (In case it is half as big a revert but still big).
>> 
>> Put another way, once you've done the p2i+INTPTR_FORMAT change, what incentive is there to fix the %p issue and revert everything you just changed? This seems like a now-or-never fix to me.
> 
> It would be.  And I advise "never".  I don't think we should chase "%p".  (Or continue chasing Chase.)

Why not? using %X for a non integer format has always seemed lame. For a few environments I've even had nice features such as %p of a function pointer printing out the name of the function. Why is %p not worth the effort? (Or why is %X better?)

Mike