From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58744)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RlUOW-000726-1c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:49:20 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RlUOU-00037z-PV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:49:20 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56616 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RlUOU-00037r-Km
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:49:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0F7110.8090100@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:47:28 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1326390853-1892-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<CAFEAcA-cZTPFf3ewhybMGcFHeWcYwDTyyAzST1LSHiec66hFTQ@mail.gmail.com>	<4F0F4361.10201@codemonkey.ws>	<CAFEAcA-3kWZ-yguE_SJ95et_0xcpTaXk64T8F+cA8uct81peXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA-89BZC5=5+AJ3U2HLNGeiovAHD67nf0K7mMP5T6Vxe_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F0F652E.6010307@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F0F652E.6010307@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] build: fix target_phys_addr_t to 64-bit
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 12.01.2012 23:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 01/12/2012 04:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I think a reasonable thing to do is:
>=20
> #define PRIp64 "0x%08" PRIx64
>=20
> s:TARGET_FMT_plx:PRIp64:g

Nack, that is unreasonable naming and does not solve the issue pointed
out by Peter. PRI* should never include % or width specifier or prefix.

What we should IMO do is:

#define PRIdPLX PRId64
#define PRIxPLX PRIx64
#define PRIXPLX PRIX64
/* or TARGET_PRI*PHYS or whatever */

This can then be used as "... %02" PRIxPLX for shortened output.

And leave TARGET_FMT_plx untouched except for having it reuse PRIxPLX.

You might want to compare OpenBIOS code, where we've been through that
trouble before.

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg