Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hw/timer/hpet: Fix DPRINTF format string

[Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 13/09/2020 14:40, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 9/12/20 7:40 PM, Dov Murik wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> On 10/09/2020 16:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Fix building with HPET_DEBUG enabled:
>>>
>>>     hw/timer/hpet.c:512:73: error: format specifies type 'unsigned int'
>>> but the argument has type 'uint64_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
>>> [-Werror,-Wformat]
>>>         DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %" PRIx64 " = %#x\n",
>>> addr, value);
>>>                                                              
>>> ~~~           ^~~~~
>>>                                                               %#lx
>>>     hw/timer/hpet.c:655:21: error: format specifies type 'unsigned int'
>>> but the argument has type 'uint64_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
>>> [-Werror,-Wformat]
>>>                         value, s->hpet_counter);
>>>                         ^~~~~
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    hw/timer/hpet.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/timer/hpet.c b/hw/timer/hpet.c
>>> index b683f64f1d3..20bd0388740 100644
>>> --- a/hw/timer/hpet.c
>>> +++ b/hw/timer/hpet.c
>>> @@ -495,7 +495,8 @@ static void hpet_ram_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
>>>        HPETState *s = opaque;
>>>        uint64_t old_val, new_val, val, index;
>>>
>>> -    DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %" PRIx64 " = %#x\n",
>>> addr, value);
>>> +    DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %#" HWADDR_PRIx " =
>>> %#"PRIx64"\n",
>>> +            addr, value);
>>
>> You still use "#" in the format string; but qemu's CODING_STYLE.rst says:
>>
>> //////////////
>>
>> '#' printf flag
>> ---------------
>>
>> Do not use printf flag '#', like '%#x'.
>>
>> Rationale: there are two ways to add a '0x' prefix to printed number:
>> '0x%...'
>> and '%#...'. For consistency the only one way should be used. Arguments for
>> '0x%' are:
>>
>> * it is more popular
>> * '%#' omits the 0x for the value 0 which makes output inconsistent
> 
> Yes you are right, I missed that.
> 
> Do you mind adding that check to ./checkpatch?

Fix to checkpatch sent in another patch:

https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg740065.html

-Dov