On 08/12/11 16:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matt Evans wrote:
>
>> Since tools/kvm/include/linux/types.h only requires __u32,
>> __u64 et al from , wouldn't it be most
>> straightforward to just #include ?
>> This avoids #define __KERNEL__ breaking other includes brought
>> into userland, a
* Matt Evans wrote:
> Since tools/kvm/include/linux/types.h only requires __u32,
> __u64 et al from , wouldn't it be most
> straightforward to just #include ?
> This avoids #define __KERNEL__ breaking other includes brought
> into userland, avoids changing system headers/distros, and
> inc
On 08/12/11 15:56, Matt Evans wrote:
> On 08/12/11 15:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Matt Evans wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12/11 04:14, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matt Evans wrote:
>
[...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
p
On 08/12/11 15:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matt Evans wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/11 04:14, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
* Matt Evans wrote:
>>> [...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
>>> patches, but it should be possible to use [un]sig
* Matt Evans wrote:
> On 08/12/11 04:14, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> * Matt Evans wrote:
> >>
> > [...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
> > patches, but it should be possible to use [un]signed long long
> > for the u64/s64 types,
On 08/12/11 04:14, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>
>> * Matt Evans wrote:
>>
> [...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
> patches, but it should be possible to use [un]signed long long
> for the u64/s64 types, I would think.
In tools/kvm/ w
On 12/07/2011 09:16 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That's what's happening here; we're __powerpc64__ and
> !__KERNEL__, tools/kvm/include/linux/types.h includes
> asm/types.h so gets the int-l64.h definition of __u64, as
> above. :/
>
> builtin-run.c:389: error: format `%llx' expects type `long
>
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Matt Evans wrote:
[...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
patches, but it should be possible to use [un]signed long long
for the u64/s64 types, I would think.
In tools/kvm/ we are using our own u64/s64 definitions, not
glibc's, so i think it shoul
On 12/07/2011 09:16 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That's what's happening here; we're __powerpc64__ and
> !__KERNEL__, tools/kvm/include/linux/types.h includes
> asm/types.h so gets the int-l64.h definition of __u64, as
> above. :/
>
> builtin-run.c:389: error: format `%llx' expects type `long
>
* Matt Evans wrote:
> >> [...] I haven't looked closely at Matt's
> >> patches, but it should be possible to use [un]signed long long
> >> for the u64/s64 types, I would think.
> >
> > In tools/kvm/ we are using our own u64/s64 definitions, not
> > glibc's, so i think it should be fine - as
Hi Ingo,
On 06/12/11 21:24, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>
Ingo actually got us to remove all the PRI* specifiers, but
that was back when we only did x86 :)
* Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo actually got us to remove all the PRI* specifiers, but
> > > that was back when we only did x86 :)
> > >
> > > Ingo, does it make sense to use them now when we
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> > Ingo actually got us to remove all the PRI* specifiers, but
> > that was back when we only did x86 :)
> >
> > Ingo, does it make sense to use them now when we support
> > different architectures?
>
>
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> Ingo actually got us to remove all the PRI* specifiers, but
> that was back when we only did x86 :)
>
> Ingo, does it make sense to use them now when we support
> different architectures?
Not at all - ppc should use a sane u64/s64 definition, i.e.
int-ll64.h instead o
Ingo actually got us to remove all the PRI* specifiers, but that was
back when we only did x86 :)
Ingo, does it make sense to use them now when we support different
architectures?
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:38 +1100, Matt Evans wrote:
> On LP64 systems our u64s are just longs; remove the %llx'es in
On LP64 systems our u64s are just longs; remove the %llx'es in favour of PRIx64
etc.
This patch also adds CFLAGS to the final link, so that any -m64 is obeyed when
linking, too.
Signed-off-by: Matt Evans
---
tools/kvm/Makefile |2 +-
tools/kvm/builtin-run.c | 14 --
too
16 matches
Mail list logo
