FYI, I believe that this has caused bug 1710757 (in baseprofiler, SprintfLiteral(buf, "%#llx", number) doesn't output "0x<number>" anymore), which made symbolication of profiles fail. TIL: ["%#..." allows an alternative output](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/c/fprintf)! I now see that [`PrintfTarget` doesn't support that](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/6b099d836c882bc155d2ef285e0ad0ab9f5038f6/mozglue/misc/Printf.h#26-27,38) like `vsnprintf` does. I'm fixing bug 1710757 there by just manually doing `SprintfLiteral("0x%llx"...`, easy enough. And I don't see any other uses of "%#" in our codebase, so I think it should be safe for now. But that's something you may want to investigate (in case there are other things than "%#" that are different), or at least document?
Bug 1690167 Comment 16 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
FYI, I believe that this has caused bug 1710757 (in baseprofiler, SprintfLiteral(buf, "%#llx", number) doesn't output "0x<number>" anymore), which made symbolication of profiles fail. TIL: ["%#..." allows an alternative output](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/c/fprintf)! I now see that [`PrintfTarget` doesn't support that](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/6b099d836c882bc155d2ef285e0ad0ab9f5038f6/mozglue/misc/Printf.h#26-27,38) like `vsnprintf` does. I'm fixing bug 1710757 there by just manually doing `SprintfLiteral("0x%llx"...`, easy enough. And I don't see any other uses of "%#" with `SprintfLiteral` in our codebase, so I think it should be safe for now. But that's something you may want to investigate (in case there are other things than "%#" that are different), or at least document?