On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 10:12:37PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > >On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:43:22PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>>>+#define S64_C(x) x ## LL > >>>>+#define U64_C(x) x ## ULL > >>>but can't we use the latter for all arches? > >>> > >>You really don't want to, as the whole point is that you want it to > >>match what u64/s64 is defined as, in order to avoid spurious warnings. > > > >Excuse me, in which contexts? Where does replacement of explicitly long > >constant with explicitly long long one generate warnings on a host that has > >range(long) equal to range(long long)? > > printf, for example. Oh, for... It's not as if we _had_ anything better for u64 than %ull and convert the argument to unsigned long long for that family. Unless you are seriously suggesting the use of vomit-inducing atrocity of PRIu64 and constant concatenation in there, that is. I would rather move typechecking for printk-style functions to sparse and tell gcc to STFU completely on that class of warnings. Making it extensible, while we are at it - i.e. telling sparse that this conversion is to be used for dma_addr_t, etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
