On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:01:21PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:17:37PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> >> @@ -336,10 +337,14 @@ const char *show_instruction(struct instruction *insn)
> >>
> >> switch (expr->type) {
> >> case EXPR_VALUE:
> >> - buf += sprintf(buf, "%lld", expr->value);
> >> + buf += sprintf(buf, "%"PRId64, expr->value);
> >> break;
> >> case EXPR_FVALUE:
> >> +#if !defined(__MINGW32__)
> >> buf += sprintf(buf, "%Lf", expr->fvalue);
> >> +#else
> >> + buf += sprintf(buf, "%f", (double)expr->fvalue);
> >> +#endif
> >
> > This seems really sad; does MinGW really have long double but no way to
> > print it? Can we at least emit something here to indicate possible
> > truncation or loss of precision, if no means exists to print a long
> > double?
>
> I couldn't find any means to do so, just from experimentation (I didn't
> have any MinGW specific gcc documentation). Thus, I tried:
[...]
> So, msvc knows about the L size modifier, but it treats a 'long double'
> the same as a 'double'.
Sigh. Odd that GCC has different behavior there, but since MinGW uses
the same C library as Visual C (msvcrt), it does seem likely that the
underlying behavior would need to match.
> The current "compat" layer has an string_to_ld() function, so maybe
> there should be an ld_to_string()? dunno.
That seems like the best plan, if you can find a portable one to
include.
> >> @@ -463,7 +468,7 @@ const char *show_instruction(struct instruction *insn)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (buf >= buffer + sizeof(buffer))
> >> - die("instruction buffer overflowed %td\n", buf - buffer);
> >> + die("instruction buffer overflowed %d\n", (int)(buf - buffer));
> >
> > No, ptrdiff_t does not portably fit in int; it generally has the same
> > size as size_t (64-bit on 64-bit platforms). Cast to "long long" and
> > use PRId64 if you must.
>
> Yes, for the same reason, git does:
>
> printf("...%" PRIuMAX "...", (uintmax_t)(buf - buffer));
>
> so I'll do that in the re-roll.
uintmax_t works; I suspect it might be overkill, but it'll work.
> >> --- a/pre-process.c
> >> +++ b/pre-process.c
> >> @@ -158,12 +158,17 @@ static int expand_one_symbol(struct token **list)
> >> } else if (token->ident == &__DATE___ident) {
> >> if (!t)
> >> time(&t);
> >> +#if !defined(__MINGW32__)
> >> strftime(buffer, 12, "%b %e %Y", localtime(&t));
> >> +#else
> >> + strftime(buffer, 12, "%b %d %Y", localtime(&t));
> >> + if (buffer[4] == '0') buffer[4] = ' ';
> >> +#endif
> > To the best of my knowledge, nothing guarantees the length of %b, so the
> > [4] here seems wrong.
>
> Yes, this was just a quick hack to compensate for the lack of the
> "%e" format specifier in the msvc strftime(). (elsewhere the lack
> of "%T" was easier to replace). I will have to think about this.
> Any ideas?
strftime returns the number of characters it generated; just format the
"%b " separately so you have the offset needed for the %d and the
modification.
> >> --- a/tokenize.c
> >> +++ b/tokenize.c
> >> @@ -547,8 +547,8 @@ static int get_one_number(int c, int next, stream_t *stream)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (p == buffer_end) {
> >> - sparse_error(stream_pos(stream), "number token exceeds %td characters",
> >> - buffer_end - buffer);
> >> + sparse_error(stream_pos(stream), "number token exceeds %d characters",
> >> + (int)(buffer_end - buffer));
> >
> > Same comment as above regarding ptrdiff_t.
> >
> > - Josh Triplett
>
> Thanks Josh. You hit every part of the patch that I wanted to
> tidy up! :-D
No problem; thanks for working on this! I'd love to see sparse used for
Windows compilation.
Have you managed to use it with a mingw cross-compiler, by any chance?
- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
