From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LsqGU-0000bL-N7 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:50 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LsqGS-0000ZK-S3 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LsqGN-0000WT-HE for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42927 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LsqGN-0000WK-Dw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:43 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:49553) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LsqGN-00015K-44 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:43 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2009 23:21:42 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08D0D34C6A for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:23:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <49E0EB22.4070308@gmail.com> References: <20090411.010829.45951849.davem@davemloft.net> <200904111919.49761.okuji@enbug.org> <20090411.044848.183598331.davem@davemloft.net> <49E0EB22.4070308@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:21:39 -0400 Message-Id: <1239506499.4007.10.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH]: grub: Fix handling of long printf arguments on 64-bit. X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:21:49 -0000 On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 21:10 +0200, phcoder wrote: > I do not agree with having separate grub_itoa/grub_ltoa/grub_lltoa in > kernel where the size is critical. Nice catch! > We should have only lltoa and use it > in all contexts. I know because of divmod64 it's slower than ltoa or > itoa but it's used only for output so speed isn't so important I agree. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin