Hi David, Thanks for the extensive review of the patch, as well as the commits. I will re-build against the latest tree and see what comes out.
Before I do that, I have a quick question: 2009/10/15 David Brownell <[email protected]> > - "%lld" being correct when the parameter is a "long long", > as it *IS* here, but for some reason this patch changed > those to require uint64_t and PRIi64. > The issue with MinGW right now is that it does not (want to) support the "ll" length modifier (which might be a GCC on Windows enforcement issue, some background of which is highlighted in this thread: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.announce/1363). Now, I do realize now that I inadvertently used PRI*i*64 instead of PRI*d*64 in my patch for %lld replacement (which is plain wrong). Is that why the %lld -> PRI#64 modifications were rejected? If so, I'll make sure resubmit with PRId64. If not, my understanding (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf#printf_format_placeholders) that ISO C99 mandates the use of PRI#64 as a replacement for %ll# in printf statements. Therefore I would believe that 'printf("value: %lld\n", val)' is completely equivalent to 'printf("value: " PRId64 "\n", val)', and should not break anything on any platform - on the contrary, it should make the code even more portable. Or am I misunderstanding something about the use of the PRI#64 modifiers? As to "%zu" and "%jd", those modifiers were also rejected by MinGW-W64 ("unknown conversion type character in format"), eventhough they're ISO C99. >From looking around, I think there's probably a way to get MinGW to accept them, which would alleviate the need for a patch. I'll get back to the list when I have tried building against the latest tree. Regards, >NIL:
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
