Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] fsmonitor: add a test tool to dump the index extension

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

 



On 2017-09-18 15:38, Ben Peart wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/17/2017 4:02 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ben Peart <benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c b/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000..482d749bb9
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
>>> +#include "cache.h"
>>> +
>>> +int cmd_main(int ac, const char **av)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct index_state *istate = &the_index;
>>> +    int i;
>>> +
>>> +    setup_git_directory();
>>> +    if (do_read_index(istate, get_index_file(), 0) < 0)
>>> +        die("unable to read index file");
>>> +    if (!istate->fsmonitor_last_update) {
>>> +        printf("no fsmonitor\n");
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    }
>>> +    printf("fsmonitor last update %"PRIuMAX"\n",
>>> istate->fsmonitor_last_update);
>>
>> After pushing this out and had Travis complain, I queued a squash on
>> top of this to cast the argument to (uintmax_t), like you did in an
>> earlier step (I think it was [PATCH 04/12]).
>>
> 
> Thanks. I'll update this to cast it as (uint64_t) as that is what get/put_be64
> use.  As far as I can tell they both map to the same thing (unsigned long long)
> so there isn't functional difference.
(Just to double-check): This is the way to print "PRIuMAX" correctly
 (on all platforms):

printf("fsmonitor last update %"PRIuMAX"\n",
 (uintmax_t)istate->fsmonitor_last_update);





[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]

  Powered by Linux