From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized integers Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:28:07 -0800 Message-ID: <47CB9A77.60708@zytor.com> References: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> <20080303023851.GF24386@parisc-linux.org> <47CB81EA.8070802@zytor.com> <20080303062007.GY27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <47CB96D5.3030509@zytor.com> <20080303063216.GA27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080303063216.GA27894-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Arch Mailing List , David Brownell Al Viro wrote: > > Oh, for... It's not as if we _had_ anything better for u64 than %ull and > convert the argument to unsigned long long for that family. > > Unless you are seriously suggesting the use of vomit-inducing atrocity of > PRIu64 and constant concatenation in there, that is. I would rather move > typechecking for printk-style functions to sparse and tell gcc to STFU > completely on that class of warnings. Making it extensible, while we are > at it - i.e. telling sparse that this conversion is to be used for dma_addr_t, > etc. No, I'm not suggesting that. I'd rather have the Windoze extension of %I64u, which of course gcc doesn't recognize. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:49543 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751635AbYCCGiP (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:38:15 -0500 Message-ID: <47CB9A77.60708@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:28:07 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized integers References: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> <20080303023851.GF24386@parisc-linux.org> <47CB81EA.8070802@zytor.com> <20080303062007.GY27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <47CB96D5.3030509@zytor.com> <20080303063216.GA27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080303063216.GA27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Arch Mailing List , David Brownell Message-ID: <20080303062807.6fv8iyOIvYhfuWvm93YKCC2tFMLC1ELe_Z6nUGk2FAY@z> Al Viro wrote: > > Oh, for... It's not as if we _had_ anything better for u64 than %ull and > convert the argument to unsigned long long for that family. > > Unless you are seriously suggesting the use of vomit-inducing atrocity of > PRIu64 and constant concatenation in there, that is. I would rather move > typechecking for printk-style functions to sparse and tell gcc to STFU > completely on that class of warnings. Making it extensible, while we are > at it - i.e. telling sparse that this conversion is to be used for dma_addr_t, > etc. No, I'm not suggesting that. I'd rather have the Windoze extension of %I64u, which of course gcc doesn't recognize. -hpa