* Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ptp: Fix compiler warnings in the testptp utility
2014-04-08 21:43 ` Keller, Jacob E
@ 2014-04-09 6:15 ` Christian Riesch
2014-04-09 6:23 ` Christian Riesch
2014-04-09 6:40 ` Christian Riesch
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Riesch @ 2014-04-09 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keller, Jacob E, Richard Cochran; +Cc: Christian Riesch, netdev, Dong Zhu
--On April 08, 2014 21:43 +0000 "Keller, Jacob E"
<jacob.e.keller@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 12:45 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:24:06PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@omicron.at>
>> > Cc: Dong Zhu <bluezhudong@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/ptp/testptp.c | 10 +++++-----
>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > index 13bddd5..14bf19e 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > +++ b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > @@ -496,14 +496,14 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> > interval = t2 - t1;
>> > offset = (t2 + t1) / 2 - tp;
>> >
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i)->sec, (pct+2*i)->nsec);
>> > - printf("phc time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("phc time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+1)->sec, (pct+2*i+1)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+2)->sec, (pct+2*i+2)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system/phc clock time offset is %ld ns\n"
>> > - "system clock time delay is %ld ns\n",
>>
>> Use PRId64 instead?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>
> I agree with this. %lld is not going to resolve the error properly on a
> 32 bit machine. Looks like a follow-on patch would have to be generated,
> since Dave applied this already.
Thanks for catching this. I read the "applied" message from David but
didn't notice that he applied v1 of the patch, v2 was the one with PRId64.
I'll prepare a follow-up patch.
Christian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ptp: Fix compiler warnings in the testptp utility
2014-04-08 21:43 ` Keller, Jacob E
2014-04-09 6:15 ` Christian Riesch
@ 2014-04-09 6:23 ` Christian Riesch
2014-04-09 6:40 ` Christian Riesch
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Riesch @ 2014-04-09 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keller, Jacob E, Richard Cochran; +Cc: Christian Riesch, netdev, Dong Zhu
--On April 08, 2014 21:43 +0000 "Keller, Jacob E"
<jacob.e.keller@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 12:45 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:24:06PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@omicron.at>
>> > Cc: Dong Zhu <bluezhudong@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/ptp/testptp.c | 10 +++++-----
>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > index 13bddd5..14bf19e 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > +++ b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > @@ -496,14 +496,14 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> > interval = t2 - t1;
>> > offset = (t2 + t1) / 2 - tp;
>> >
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i)->sec, (pct+2*i)->nsec);
>> > - printf("phc time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("phc time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+1)->sec, (pct+2*i+1)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+2)->sec, (pct+2*i+2)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system/phc clock time offset is %ld ns\n"
>> > - "system clock time delay is %ld ns\n",
>>
>> Use PRId64 instead?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>
> I agree with this. %lld is not going to resolve the error properly on a
> 32 bit machine.
Actually, %lld solves the problem on a 32 bit machine (this is what I am
compiling for), but it will cause warnings on 64 bit, right?
Christian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ptp: Fix compiler warnings in the testptp utility
2014-04-08 21:43 ` Keller, Jacob E
2014-04-09 6:15 ` Christian Riesch
2014-04-09 6:23 ` Christian Riesch
@ 2014-04-09 6:40 ` Christian Riesch
2014-04-09 17:33 ` Keller, Jacob E
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Riesch @ 2014-04-09 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keller, Jacob E, Richard Cochran; +Cc: Christian Riesch, netdev, Dong Zhu
--On April 08, 2014 21:43 +0000 "Keller, Jacob E"
<jacob.e.keller@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 12:45 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:24:06PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@omicron.at>
>> > Cc: Dong Zhu <bluezhudong@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/ptp/testptp.c | 10 +++++-----
>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > index 13bddd5..14bf19e 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > +++ b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
>> > @@ -496,14 +496,14 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> > interval = t2 - t1;
>> > offset = (t2 + t1) / 2 - tp;
>> >
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i)->sec, (pct+2*i)->nsec);
>> > - printf("phc time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("phc time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+1)->sec, (pct+2*i+1)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
>> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
>> > (pct+2*i+2)->sec, (pct+2*i+2)->nsec);
>> > - printf("system/phc clock time offset is %ld ns\n"
>> > - "system clock time delay is %ld ns\n",
>>
>> Use PRId64 instead?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>
> I agree with this. %lld is not going to resolve the error properly on a
> 32 bit machine. Looks like a follow-on patch would have to be generated,
> since Dave applied this already.
I checked again, no follow-up patch is required: David first applied v1
(commit 203191c386e83b8c5d95bbbaef13baa629512726), later reverted it
(031fe792ccd4f5d79415b219c73b868da98d9b70), and applied v2
(4ec54f95736f2d90e4d9e4fcc75cf1228f0f3ede).
Thanks, Christian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ptp: Fix compiler warnings in the testptp utility
2014-04-09 6:40 ` Christian Riesch
@ 2014-04-09 17:33 ` Keller, Jacob E
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Keller, Jacob E @ 2014-04-09 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Riesch
Cc: Richard Cochran, Christian Riesch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Dong Zhu
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:40 +0200, Christian Riesch wrote:
>
> --On April 08, 2014 21:43 +0000 "Keller, Jacob E"
> <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 12:45 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:24:06PM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
> >> > Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@omicron.at>
> >> > Cc: Dong Zhu <bluezhudong@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > Documentation/ptp/testptp.c | 10 +++++-----
> >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
> >> > index 13bddd5..14bf19e 100644
> >> > --- a/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
> >> > +++ b/Documentation/ptp/testptp.c
> >> > @@ -496,14 +496,14 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> >> > interval = t2 - t1;
> >> > offset = (t2 + t1) / 2 - tp;
> >> >
> >> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
> >> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
> >> > (pct+2*i)->sec, (pct+2*i)->nsec);
> >> > - printf("phc time: %ld.%ld\n",
> >> > + printf("phc time: %lld.%u\n",
> >> > (pct+2*i+1)->sec, (pct+2*i+1)->nsec);
> >> > - printf("system time: %ld.%ld\n",
> >> > + printf("system time: %lld.%u\n",
> >> > (pct+2*i+2)->sec, (pct+2*i+2)->nsec);
> >> > - printf("system/phc clock time offset is %ld ns\n"
> >> > - "system clock time delay is %ld ns\n",
> >>
> >> Use PRId64 instead?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Richard
> >>
> >
> > I agree with this. %lld is not going to resolve the error properly on a
> > 32 bit machine. Looks like a follow-on patch would have to be generated,
> > since Dave applied this already.
>
> I checked again, no follow-up patch is required: David first applied v1
> (commit 203191c386e83b8c5d95bbbaef13baa629512726), later reverted it
> (031fe792ccd4f5d79415b219c73b868da98d9b70), and applied v2
> (4ec54f95736f2d90e4d9e4fcc75cf1228f0f3ede).
>
> Thanks, Christian
And yes, you were right %lld works for 32bit but not 64bit. I had it
backwards.
Thanks,
Jake
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread