Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:19 +0100 From: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: where do %j/uintmax_t stand in terms of standards? [WAS: Re: WARNS cleanup for ipfw Message-ID: <20040306173219.GB64109@numeri.campus.luth.se> In-Reply-To: <20040306082625.B34490@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20040306111922.GA64109@numeri.campus.luth.se> <20040306082625.B34490@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[lets move this from ipfw@ to standars@ to get an answer] On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:26 (-0800) +0000, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:19:22PM +0100, Johan Karlsson wrote: > > Hi > > > > the attached patch makes ipfw WARNS=2 clean by using the > > %j/(uintmax_t) combo where so needed. If there are no > > objections I intend to commit this patch. First of all, %j/uintmax_t is used since uint64_t does not match long long on all our platforms. Hence to print this without warning we need to do this. > > if align_uint64() is always cast to uintmax_t, why don't > you define it to return the proper type instead ? Since I only looked at removing the warnings I did not realize that it is only used when printing. However, I do agree that this is a better solution. I will make that change and run it through a make universe. > > Also, where do %j/uintmax_t stand in terms of standards ? > certainly the gcc in 4.x does not like them... I have absolutly no idea. Can someone here at standards@ answer this question? take care /Johan K -- Johan Karlsson mailto:johan@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040306173219.GB64109>