From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZQql-00083C-3E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:27:35 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZQqg-0007tN-7N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:27:34 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33795 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZQqf-0007t2-W9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:27:30 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3444)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NZQqf-0003k5-I6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:27:29 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:27:19 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] win32: use PRId64 instead of %lld
Message-ID: <20100125132719.23a483cf@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <m3k4v6s14m.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <1264368221-3040-1-git-send-email-hpoussin@reactos.org>
	<20100125100905.GA9019@redhat.com>
	<20100125120348.461ce622@doriath>
	<m3k4v6s14m.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, Herve@gnu.org, Poussineau <hpoussin@reactos.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:35:53 +0100
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:09:06 +0200
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >>                                                                 Finally,
> >> don't we want unsigned values in protocol?
> >
> >  JSON doesn't support them.
> 
> Uh, where does the RFC say that?

 I see that my comment was misleading.

 In JSON we don't have unsigned types, we have only a type
called 'number' to represent them all.

 Unsigneds should be handled correctly, except for uint64_t which
is cast to int64_t.

 Michael, does this answer your question? Is there any
issue with the handling of unsigneds I'm not aware about?