From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: 32-bit compilation & debug logs Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1626400.QN1GMNLe81@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FA549E0 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:55:04 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1626400.QN1GMNLe81@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 13-Feb-18 8:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi all, > > There is a very common pattern with build failures in DPDK. > When compiling in 32-bit mode, there are some mismatches between > printf format "%lu" / "%lx" and the size of the data being 64-bit. > In 32-bit mode, a long is 32 bits long :) > That's why "%lx" must be replaced by "%" PRIx64. > > long -> %lx > uint64_t -> %PRIx64 > > Most of the times, using %l is wrong (except when printing a long). > So next time you write %l, please think "I am probably wrong". > > For the existing codebase, please grep "%l". > There are probably some remaining wrong "%l" which are not detected > when compiling, because the code is in debug functions never enabled. > Note that debug code should be tested but there can be some forgotten > code paths. > > Thanks > This sounds like something that should be part of build automation or check-build script. -- Thanks, Anatoly