Followup to: <E17mJZh-0005jw-00@starship>
By author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> We've been through this before. Last time, the winning solution was:
>
> printk("at least %lli of your u64s are belong to us\n", (long long) sect_num);
>
> and I expect it will be this time too. It's just a printk! Who cares if it
> wastes a few bytes. It's even conceivable that if we use this idiom heavily
> enough, some gcc boffin will take the time to optimize away the useless
> conversions.
>
Why can't we use the C99 standard:
printk("at least %ji of your u64s are belong to us\n", (uintmax_t) sect_num);
I, for one, would be rather happy at having <inttypes.h> available in
the kernel, as either an alternative or instead of the [su]XX/__[su]XX types.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:15 EST