On 05/27/10 12:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:55:49PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 05/27/10 12:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> I think this part of 0bfcd599e3f5c5679cc7d0165a0a1822e2f60de2 >>> should just be reverted. We have unsigned long, it should be printed >>> woith %ll. Casting to uint64_t just so we can print with PRIu64 seems silly. >> >> That is an option too. Problem is just that unsigned long is 32 bit on >> 32 bit systems and Windows (even for 64 bit) so if we need more flags we >> need to be careful with it. >> >> Cheers, >> Jes > > I don't understand, sorry. > This field is unsigned long long, not unsigned long. > %ll will print unsigned long long > for any standard printf, whatever its length.
Ah ok, if the field is long long, then your patch should be just fine. I hadn't checked that was the case. Cheers, Jes
