On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 16:21 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > 2012-03-21 15:29, rong deng skrev: > > 2) Would "%llx" solve this warning equally well? > > > > On 32-bit system, yes, but then, it's not portable. > > To print uin64_t on 32 bit system, we should use %llx, > > but to print it on 64 bit system, we should use %lx instead. PRI-prefix > > help us handle this. > > > > Yes, there IS another way to handle, we can explicitly cast > > 'pa_channel_position_mask_t' to 'unsigned long long' and use %llx. > > A quick grep through the code shows that this is how we've been doing it > up till now, so we should probably keep it that way for consistency. > > So, just for education, would you mind resending the patch with git > send-email, and using %llx ? Thanks! At the risk of turning this into prolonged bikeshedding, IMO the PRI constants would be the better solution (with a small margin). I have myself used the casting solution in the past to get rid of compiler warnings, but that has been because I didn't know about the PRI constants. That said, I'm ok with either solution. -- Tanu
