Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 02:28:29PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> long is different between 32 and 64 and should basically never be
>> used. Fixes compiler warning about passing the wrong type.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tests/kms_content_protection.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/kms_content_protection.c b/tests/kms_content_protection.c
>> index 801eff66c272..bb9ecd3f4cde 100644
>> --- a/tests/kms_content_protection.c
>> +++ b/tests/kms_content_protection.c
>> @@ -89,7 +89,8 @@ wait_for_prop_value(igt_output_t *output, uint64_t expected,
>> return true;
>> usleep(1000);
>> }
>> - igt_info("prop_value mismatch %ld != %ld\n", val, expected);
>> + igt_info("prop_value mismatch %lld != %lld\n",
>> + (long long)val, (long long)expected);
>
> We use the ugly PRId64 & co. elsewhere for this.
My experience with those ugly macros is that people have a flinch when
trying to remember how they work and just ignore the issue instead,
leaving it for those that have to compile for 32. I'll switch it,
though.
Hopefully i-g-t will get cross-compiling CI and merge requests at some
point so that these bugs can just never land in the first place.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
