Re: [sqlite] printf-8.2 test failure on Solaris on SPARC 64-bit

2008-06-22 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:15:09PM -0400, Eric Minbiole wrote: > I agree that you are on the right track-- the format doesn't portably > match the values. However, I think the %lu part is correct-- "long" is > the only C type guaranteed to be at least 32 bits. Instead, I think the > issue is

Re: [sqlite] printf-8.2 test failure on Solaris on SPARC 64-bit

2008-06-20 Thread Eric Minbiole
> printf-8.2... > Expected: [2147483647 2147483648 4294967295] > Got: [2147483647 18446744071562067968 18446744073709551615] > > The code looks like: > > > ... > do_test printf-8.2 { > sqlite3_mprintf_int {%lu %lu %lu} 0x7fff 0x8000 0x > } {2147483647 2147483648

[sqlite] printf-8.2 test failure on Solaris on SPARC 64-bit

2008-06-20 Thread Nicolas Williams
I ran into this with SQLite3 3.5.4: printf-8.2... Expected: [2147483647 2147483648 4294967295] Got: [2147483647 18446744071562067968 18446744073709551615] The code looks like: ... do_test printf-8.2 { sqlite3_mprintf_int {%lu %lu %lu} 0x7fff 0x8000 0x } {2147483647