From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar  6 21:22:34 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 98FD416A4CE; Sat,  6 Mar 2004 21:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8B5FC43D1F; Sat,  6 Mar 2004 21:22:34 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i275MX9Q057340;
	Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:22:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3/Submit) id i275MXba057339;
	Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:22:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:22:33 -0800
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040306212233.A56351@xorpc.icir.org>
References: <20040306111922.GA64109@numeri.campus.luth.se>
	<20040306082625.B34490@xorpc.icir.org>
	<20040306173219.GB64109@numeri.campus.luth.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20040306173219.GB64109@numeri.campus.luth.se>;
	from johan@freebsd.org on Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 06:32:19PM +0100
cc: ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: where do %j/uintmax_t stand in terms of standards? [WAS: Re:
	WARNS cleanup for ipfw
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 05:22:34 -0000

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 06:32:19PM +0100, Johan Karlsson wrote:
> [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.

ok, given that our counters _are_ 64 bits on all platforms, and
that it would be nice to use the same code on 4.x and 5.x (at least,
I'd hate to see a large number of differences for something trivial
as a printf specifier), i suggest to leave the print format as "%llu",
which is supported on all versions and platforms, and change
align_uint64() as following:

-static __inline uint64_t
+static unsigned long long
 align_uint64(uint64_t *pll) {
	uint64_t ret;

+	/* make sure the value is correctly aligned, as pll might be not */
	bcopy (pll, &ret, sizeof(ret));
-	return ret;
+	return (unsigned long long)ret;
 };

(we do not care about __inline since this is always called 
within a *printf() which is way more expensive).
This should close the issue, and is a lot more readable and
portable than the proposed patch or my previous suggestion.

	cheers
	luigi