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-
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
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-
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
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-
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
(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
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-
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
(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
10 matches
Mail list logo