From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jolsa@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9322C007E
 for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:57:56 +1100 (EST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:57:26 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix compile warnings in tests/attr.c
Message-ID: <20130122135726.GD1037@krava.brq.redhat.com>
References: <20130119013052.GA24693@us.ibm.com>
 <20130121135906.GD1995@krava.brq.redhat.com>
 <20130121213823.GA4774@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20130121213823.GA4774@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
 paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:38:23PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Jiri Olsa [jolsa@redhat.com] wrote:
> | On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:30:52PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:

SNIP

> __u64 is 'unsigned long long' on x86 and PRIu64 is 'llu' which is fine.
> 
> __u64 is 'unsigned long' on Power and PRIu64 is 'lu' which is again fine.
> 
> But __u64 is 'unsigned long long' on x86_64, but PRIu64 is '%lu' bc __WORDSIZE
> is 64.
> 
> On x86_64, shouldn't __u64, be defined as 'unsigned long' rather than
> 'unsigned long long' - ie include 'int-l64.h' rather than 'int-ll64.h' ?

hum, not sure ;-) will try to find some time to look on that

> 
> BTW, does 'perf' with my patch compile, (with warnings) for you on x86_64
> with 'WERROR=0 make' ?

this one passes with warnings

jirka