This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch bfd]: Fix printf formatter for mingw 1 of N

From: nick clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
To: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:42:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch bfd]: Fix printf formatter for mingw 1 of N
References: <CAEwic4YmqeafrZe9HzPZw+D7R_7RRjJ1ZepiKX-AmW3x3CAtJg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kai,

this is first patch addressing this issue.  There are several other
places where similiar issues are happening (see use of %z, %lld, and
%llx in bfd, binutils, and opcode sources). There are are several
different ways to resolve these issue.  First would be to add - as
done by this patch - include of inttypes.h - if available - and use
int64_t here instead 'long long' type.  Second would be to add those
helper macros to bfd-in.h (eg BFD_PRI64 and bfd_int64_t/bfd_uint64_t).
  Another variant would be to use in binutils the gnulib existing for
gdb for now.  The fourth solution would be to enable for mingw-targets
by default POSIX-printf, which of course don't resolve the issue for
VC.
So I would like to get your opinion, which variant is preferred by
binutils community to resolve this printf-formatting issue.

I prefer your first solution.

2012-10-10 Kai Tietz

	* coff-rs600.c (FMT20): Use
	PRId64 macro, if available.
	(FMT20_type): New.

Approved - please apply.

Cheers
  Nick

References:
- [patch bfd]: Fix printf formatter for mingw 1 of N
  - From: Kai Tietz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]