From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46820) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHSZc-0006jK-DP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:39:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHSZY-0005Br-BT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:39:04 -0500 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=56298 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHSZX-0005Ba-Vz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:39:00 -0500 References: <1452047951-17429-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1452047951-17429-4-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <568D3AB2.8020100@redhat.com> <568E1DD9.7020502@cn.fujitsu.com> <568E97AD.4000701@redhat.com> From: Cao jin Message-ID: <568F7654.1030300@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:41:56 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <568E97AD.4000701@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/4] Add Error **errp for xen_pt_config_init() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/08/2016 12:51 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/07/2016 01:12 AM, Cao jin wrote: > >>>> if (rc < 0) { >>>> - XEN_PT_LOG(&s->dev, "Failed to initialize %d/%ld, >>>> type=0x%x, rc:%d\n", >>>> - i, ARRAY_SIZE(xen_pt_emu_reg_grps), >>>> + error_setg(&local_err, "Failed to initialize %d/%ld, >>>> type=0x%x," >>>> + " rc:%d", i, >>>> ARRAY_SIZE(xen_pt_emu_reg_grps), >>> >>> This maps ARRAY_SIZE() (which is size_t) to %ld, which can fail to >>> compile on 32-bit platforms (where size_t is not necessarily long). Fix >>> it to %zd while touching it. >>> >> >> a question: >> 1. Is %zu more suitable for size_t? since size_t is unsigned integer. > > Yes, you're right on that one. > >> >> and a personal question after digging into size_t: >> 2. Does the size of size_t always equal to the word length[*] of computer > > No. It equals the maximum size the program can use. But the x32 ABI > project is a good example of a 32-bit size_t while still taking full > advantage of the 64-bit word size registers, in the name of memory > efficiencies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI. > Thanks very much. Have send v4 version, hope I don`t miss any comment:) -- Yours Sincerely, Cao jin