[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-10-29 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim The print format of s32 type was "ld" and it's casted to "long". So it turned out to print 4294967295 for "-1" on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on both of 32-

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-10-29 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com The print format of s32 type was ld and it's casted to long. So it turned out to print 4294967295 for -1 on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-09-02 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim The print format of s32 type was "ld" and it's casted to "long". So it turned out to print 4294967295 for "-1" on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on both of 32-

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-09-02 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com The print format of s32 type was ld and it's casted to long. So it turned out to print 4294967295 for -1 on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-27 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim The print format of s32 type was "ld" and it's casted to "long". So it turned out to print 4294967295 for "-1" on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on both of 32-

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-27 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com The print format of s32 type was ld and it's casted to long. So it turned out to print 4294967295 for -1 on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on

Re: [PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-09 Thread Masami Hiramatsu
(2013/08/09 17:44), Namhyung Kim wrote: > From: Namhyung Kim > > The print format of s32 type was "ld" and it's casted to "long". So > it turned out to print 4294967295 for "-1" on 64-bit systems. Not > sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. > > Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-09 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim The print format of s32 type was "ld" and it's casted to "long". So it turned out to print 4294967295 for "-1" on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on both of 32-

[PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-09 Thread Namhyung Kim
From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com The print format of s32 type was ld and it's casted to long. So it turned out to print 4294967295 for -1 on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we have exact format and type cast for each types on

Re: [PATCH 02/13] tracing/probes: Fix basic print type functions

2013-08-09 Thread Masami Hiramatsu
(2013/08/09 17:44), Namhyung Kim wrote: From: Namhyung Kim namhyung@lge.com The print format of s32 type was ld and it's casted to long. So it turned out to print 4294967295 for -1 on 64-bit systems. Not sure whether it worked well on 32-bit systems. Anyway, it'd be better if we