> -----Original Message----- > From: Torsten Bögershausen [mailto:tboegi@xxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:43 AM > To: Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx>; Junio C Hamano > <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>; Ben Peart <Ben.Peart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx; avarab@xxxxxxxxx; > christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx; pclouds@xxxxxxxxx; peff@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] fsmonitor: add a test tool to dump the index > extension > > 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); > Should I just make the variable type itself uintmax_t and then just skip the cast altogether? I went with uint64_t because that is what getnanotime returned.
