Build problem smbfs/file.c

Build problem smbfs/file.c

[Nick Warne]

Just patched 2.6.3 -> 2.6.4

I got a build warning:

... type character `z'...
fs/smbfs/file.c: 272 too many arguments for format.

Line 272:

PARANOIA("%s/%s validation failed, error=%zd\n"

Ummm.  I removed the `z' from error=%zd\n" - it appears to be rogue, 
but what do I know ;)

And no warnings now. Is this as it should be?

Nick
(not subscribed).
-- 
"When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."

Re: Build problem smbfs/file.c

[Nick Warne]

> I got a build warning:
> 
> ... type character `z'...
> fs/smbfs/file.c: 272 too many arguments for format.
> 
> Line 272:
> 
> PARANOIA("%s/%s validation failed, error=%zd\n"
> 
> Ummm.  I removed the `z' from error=%zd\n" - it appears to be rogue, 
> but what do I know ;)
> 
> And no warnings now. Is this as it should be?

OK, replying to myself.

it should be (I believe from looking at other code):

PARANOIA("%s/%s validation failed, error=%Zd\n"

Nick

-- 
"When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."

Re: Build problem smbfs/file.c

[Urban Widmark]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Nick Warne wrote:

> PARANOIA("%s/%s validation failed, error=%zd\n"
> 
> Ummm.  I removed the `z' from error=%zd\n" - it appears to be rogue, 
> but what do I know ;)

I think someone meant to change my %d into a %Zd, like in smb_file_read.
Or not, since my gcc's understand them both.

Compiler version?

/Urban

Re: Build problem smbfs/file.c

[Nick Warne]

> > PARANOIA("%s/%s validation failed, error=%zd\n"
> > 
> > Ummm.  I removed the `z' from error=%zd\n" - it appears to be rogue, 
> > but what do I know ;)
> 
> I think someone meant to change my %d into a %Zd, like in smb_file_read.
> Or not, since my gcc's understand them both.
> 
> Compiler version?

I installed the recommended kernel GCC as per the docs:

[root@Linux233 linux-2.6.1]# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-
gnu/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)

OK, after some research it is a GCC problem - but I need to ask why 
this is now become a problem.

Googling, Andrew Morton pulled this up in the lkml found here:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/7/7/225

Now, I am a bit worried if the lower case version `z' is to be used, 
that it will be a bit of a problem if there are lots of files using 
it.

Also, although GCC reports this as a warning, it also seems to say "I 
don't know what this is, so am ignoring it" sort of thing?

Or am I PARANOIA...

Thanks,

Nick

-- 
"When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."