Re: [PATCH 3/6] Introduce a new "printf format" for timestamps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> So let's introduce the pseudo format "PRItime" (currently simply being
> "lu") so that it is easy later on to change the data type to time_t.

The problem being solved is a good thing to solve, and 

> -	printf("author-time %lu\n", ci.author_time);
> +	printf("author-time %"PRItime"\n", ci.author_time);

is one of the two ingredients to the solution for this line.  But
the final form would require casting ci.author_time to the type
expected by %PRItime format specifier.  With this change alone, you
could define PRItime to expect an winder type in the next step but
that would be a bad conversion.  IOW, changing only the format
without introducing an explicit cast appears to invite future
mistakes.

It would be better to introduce the timestamp_t we discussed earlier
before (or at) this step, and typedef it to ulong first, and then in
this step, change the above to

	printf("author-time %"PRItime"\n", (timestamp_t)ci.author_time);

to keep them in sync.  And at a later step in the series, you can
update definition of PRItime and timestamp_t to make them wider at
the same time, and the changes in this patch like the above line
would not need to be touched again.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]