[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:12:37 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Arch Mailing List <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized
integers
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.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists