Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9 | Date | 2 Dec 2002 16:05:17 -0800 |
| |
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/
| |