From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 6 09:32:22 2004 Return-Path: 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 6F7C016A4CE; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:32:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from numeri.campus.luth.se (numeri.campus.luth.se [130.240.197.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C5C43D45; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:32:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from k@numeri.campus.luth.se) Received: from numeri.campus.luth.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i26HWJT9074142; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from k@numeri.campus.luth.se) Received: (from k@localhost) by numeri.campus.luth.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i26HWJJM074141; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from k) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:19 +0100 From: Johan Karlsson To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20040306173219.GB64109@numeri.campus.luth.se> References: <20040306111922.GA64109@numeri.campus.luth.se> <20040306082625.B34490@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040306082625.B34490@xorpc.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 05:18:21 -0800 cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:32:22 -0000 [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